Is there any concern about air/dust friction wearing away at the fine micro/nano structure, thus removing the water proofing properties over time?
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Is there any concern about air/dust friction wearing away at the fine micro/nano structure, thus removing the water proofing properties over time?
I'm not sure what air could do, but I'd imagine scratching would have similar effects on micro-structured materials as it does on chemical coatings. Everything wears down over time and under heavy use. Although again, coatings would be much easier to replace/repair.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
So if you applied the laser alterations to the hull of a ship, would it prevent corrosion? How do the alterations behave under pressure greater than one atmosphere? How durable are the features?
That last bit was my question, they mention it should hold up better than most surface treatments that accomplish similar things.
Is there any concern about air/dust friction wearing away at the fine micro/nano structure, thus removing the water proofing properties over time?
I'm not sure what air could do, but I'd imagine scratching would have similar effects on micro-structured materials as it does on chemical coatings. Everything wears down over time and under heavy use. Although again, coatings would be much easier to replace/repair.
I think because it's actually changing the molecular properties of the metal, you'd need the metal itself to wear down before the water-proofing left it. Which, at that point, you'd probably want to replace the part of anything so important as to require such a procedure to begin with.
So if you applied the laser alterations to the hull of a ship, would it prevent corrosion? How do the alterations behave under pressure greater than one atmosphere? How durable are the features?
That last bit was my question, they mention it should hold up better than most surface treatments that accomplish similar things.
Hmm, good to know.
Maybe you could develop something similar to a CD reader that can detect where the surface needs a touch up and then laser the area on the spot.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Is there any concern about air/dust friction wearing away at the fine micro/nano structure, thus removing the water proofing properties over time?
I'm not sure what air could do, but I'd imagine scratching would have similar effects on micro-structured materials as it does on chemical coatings. Everything wears down over time and under heavy use. Although again, coatings would be much easier to replace/repair.
I think because it's actually changing the molecular properties of the metal, you'd need the metal itself to wear down before the water-proofing left it. Which, at that point, you'd probably want to replace the part of anything so important as to require such a procedure to begin with.
Maybe.
Ultrahydrophobic surfaces are just that - surfaces. It's a property of the geometry as much as the material, and will vanish when the surface is worn. However, apparently it can be resilient enough to consider using for aircraft: http://www.seashelltech.com/pressRelease.shtml
I like the idea of using it one the wings of aircraft, but there's no surface treatment that will survive the fabrication process for skinning the aircraft. I'm sure someone could do it at a depo when making it, but anything that needs repairs or reskinning isn't going to work unless they can haul the laser out there and do it in person after the job has been done, and after the paint is on it.
I think the point is that this is not a layer added to the metal, it's an alteration of the metal that creates a hydrophobic layer. So you can bend and shape the metal all you want after the fact. You just can't paint it because you'd be covering a hydro phobic surface.
In fact, you might not even be able to paint it.
An aqua phobic urinal is also a cool idea.
The hydrophobic properties come from the surface texture created by nanostructures.
The fabrication process for aircraft skin involves stretching and shrinking the metal to fit as well as rolling it and heat treating it. They would not be able to pretreat the metal before it is used to skin the aircraft as the stresses on the metal would break down the structure of the metal. You also can't premake the skin because of the stresses on the aircraft and how it changes the structure of the frame.
Attempts to use a premade panel tend to end in more problems than they're worth as each aircraft has differences in their airframe that develop over time.
0
ChimeraMonster girl with a snek tail and five eyesBad puns, that's how eye roll. Registered Userregular
Hooray! SDO has snapped it's 100,000,000 photo of the sun!
So if you applied the laser alterations to the hull of a ship, would it prevent corrosion? How do the alterations behave under pressure greater than one atmosphere? How durable are the features?
the better question is, if you make a boat's hull aquaphobic, would it go bitch'n-fast?
When I used to sail, the thinking was that faster boat coatings were ones which caused a thin layer of water to cling to the hull, so the friction was against the water and water, not the water and the hull.
Of course, this is dinghy sailing, so the thought of using nanotechnology to get more speed out of a boat costing less than five grand would be crazy. Also the above thinking might have been worked out under the same Waarhammer 40k logic as "red spaceships go faster" without the latent psychic powers to make it come true.
So if you applied the laser alterations to the hull of a ship, would it prevent corrosion? How do the alterations behave under pressure greater than one atmosphere? How durable are the features?
the better question is, if you make a boat's hull aquaphobic, would it go bitch'n-fast?
When I used to sail, the thinking was that faster boat coatings were ones which caused a thin layer of water to cling to the hull, so the friction was against the water and water, not the water and the hull.
Of course, this is dinghy sailing, so the thought of using nanotechnology to get more speed out of a boat costing less than five grand would be crazy. Also the above thinking might have been worked out under the same Waarhammer 40k logic as "red spaceships go faster" without the latent psychic powers to make it come true.
On a similar topic, I think a few people have at least discussed trying out NeverWet on boats to see if it would have an effect (much cheaper spray-on two part superhydrophobic coating).
edit: looked for an explanation on what would happen, the general consensus is it would move faster because you'd end up with an Air/Water boundary which would slip past each other in a two-phase flow, which is much lower resistance than fluid friction (drag). The more critical factor is the boat's hull geometry though, as the impact would be relatively minor.
looks like the air pocket can't form when an object is submerged and instead it causes a lot of drag.
It looks more like that the chemical actually took the previously smooth surface and ate it up some some to return it to a rough texture which created the drag. At the end you see the hydrophobic effects are no longer present as the substance has come off and left behind a rough texture to the hull.
I wonder what would happen if it would properly bond with the surface it had been applied onto.
PSN: jfrofl
+1
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
The NASA rover Opportunity landed on Mars January 25th, 2004, for an expected 90 day (well, sol, since Martian days are slightly longer) mission. Eleven years later, it's still rolling along, though with some slight computer brain problems but whatever. It has traveled over 40 kilometers and returned over 180,000 pictures.
I always would've liked to write a short story about the Spirit and Opportunity rovers wherein they are still functioning and transmitting data back to a post-apocalyptic world of whatever flavor, where no one is listening or caring. If only I wasn't so bereft of any talent I might have written it
I like the idea of using it one the wings of aircraft, but there's no surface treatment that will survive the fabrication process for skinning the aircraft. I'm sure someone could do it at a depo when making it, but anything that needs repairs or reskinning isn't going to work unless they can haul the laser out there and do it in person after the job has been done, and after the paint is on it.
I think the point is that this is not a layer added to the metal, it's an alteration of the metal that creates a hydrophobic layer. So you can bend and shape the metal all you want after the fact. You just can't paint it because you'd be covering a hydro phobic surface.
In fact, you might not even be able to paint it.
An aqua phobic urinal is also a cool idea.
The hydrophobic properties come from the surface texture created by nanostructures.
The fabrication process for aircraft skin involves stretching and shrinking the metal to fit as well as rolling it and heat treating it. They would not be able to pretreat the metal before it is used to skin the aircraft as the stresses on the metal would break down the structure of the metal. You also can't premake the skin because of the stresses on the aircraft and how it changes the structure of the frame.
Attempts to use a premade panel tend to end in more problems than they're worth as each aircraft has differences in their airframe that develop over time.
Tolerancing is a bitch. The other aerospace application problem is that they are testing water at a speeds that are not practical for a plane. A plane going through rain at 560 mph (B777) is like having a droplet or water shot from a gun hitting the plane. When their pattern can withstand that application is another question. Boeing tests paint with a specially designed gun to shoot water droplets.
Icing and other chemical contamination is more complicated. Fogging is coalescence of water at the surface, and for icing, you need the water to be gone before the liquid transitions to a solid.
I've seen the superhydrophobic and superhydrophilic claim so many times over the years. Those universities just didn't have as good of marketing arm.
I don't understand the significance of this fully. Seems, neat, but I don't really get the changes it will allow.
Protein drugs are expensive and difficult to administer because proteins folded the wrong way can kill you. That's the big thing for health care research.
This is my ultra-layman's, paid-no-more-than-two-minutes-attention-to-the-issue take on it:
Imagine you're parking a car, and being graded on how well you get it between the lines. Now imagine that you don't have a reverse gear. That's life in cancer drug synthesis before this procedure.
Now imagine how much better you could score if you actually had a reverse gear, and could back out of bad turns and try again. That's life in cancer drug synthesis now that we have this procedure.
... I think.
My favorite musical instrument is the air-raid siren.
Lab environment proteins are hard to produce, hard to purify, and under bad circumstances denaturate, and getting them back is a huge hassle. Having a quick and easy force back allows for quickly repeatable experiments. Getting your proteins is the tedious routine part of many a biochemist, and if you can cut into the time they spend on that, they'll all be way more productive.
So, like, this is a new application of a 'vortex fluidic device', which seems like a pretty neat bit of kit, using the sheer regions to disentangle the unfolded proteins.
This really belongs in the defunct history thread, but Boston.com recently had a history of the snow plow article. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2015/01/24/snowtron-and-snowzilla-how-boston-removed-snow-from-its-streets-throughout-history/v8455vpxuBjJ8KmRFDPguK/story.html
A horse drawn sled, meant to level and pack down the snow, not actually plow it. Although this photo was taken in 1901, this particular practice was done since at least 1830. Notice the cleared sidewalks, a law that had been in effect since 1823.
A horse drawn wagon plow from 1857. Note that this wasn't all that effective, or necessary, in the age of horse drawn wagons, as you could just as easily have horse drawn sleds, which is why the prior practice of just flattening the snow in the roads was much more popular.
A plow meant to clear the electric trolley rail lines from 1905.
The first car snowplow, attached to a Ford Model T, circa 1914.
Snowtron, a truck that melted snow into water, to be drained into the harbor, circa 1965. The practice of dumping excess snow into the harbor (either directly or via storm drains) was outlawed in 1997, as part of the harbor cleanup effort.
That's Snowzilla, a jet engine attached to a railroad car, made in 1980 and still in use today to remove snow from the above ground subway lines.
I don't understand the significance of this fully. Seems, neat, but I don't really get the changes it will allow.
Protein drugs are expensive and difficult to administer because proteins folded the wrong way can kill you. That's the big thing for health care research.
Not so much, problem with administering protein based drugs is that they're really, really big and it's tricky to get them across membranes - plus the ideal route for a medicine (pill taken orally) has to go via the part of your gut that specialises in breaking down proteins. Whilst there are such things as prions, they're not a major concern in biologic development as far as I'm aware. I don't see this as a method for really increasing the purity of synthesised proteins, more the yield - if you're using sheering forces to untangle them you're going to end up with quite a few misfolded fragments.
The really interesting stuff I think would come from being able to make 'hardy' enzyme systems, so if your vat of goo goes out of range (pH, temperature - either environmental or as a result of the reaction they're catalysing, etc) you're able to get most of the activity back without having to produce an entirely new batch.
I don't understand the significance of this fully. Seems, neat, but I don't really get the changes it will allow.
Protein drugs are expensive and difficult to administer because proteins folded the wrong way can kill you. That's the big thing for health care research.
Not so much, problem with administering protein based drugs is that they're really, really big and it's tricky to get them across membranes - plus the ideal route for a medicine (pill taken orally) has to go via the part of your gut that specialises in breaking down proteins. Whilst there are such things as prions, they're not a major concern in biologic development as far as I'm aware. I don't see this as a method for really increasing the purity of synthesised proteins, more the yield - if you're using sheering forces to untangle them you're going to end up with quite a few misfolded fragments.
The really interesting stuff I think would come from being able to make 'hardy' enzyme systems, so if your vat of goo goes out of range (pH, temperature - either environmental or as a result of the reaction they're catalysing, etc) you're able to get most of the activity back without having to produce an entirely new batch.
[/q]
Prions are notable because they're infectious proteins. But a big dose of a misfold which turned out to be toxic would still be very bad.
0
ChimeraMonster girl with a snek tail and five eyesBad puns, that's how eye roll. Registered Userregular
Hey science nerds! Want to learn the very basics of how to be a storm spotter and do what I do when chasing? Well you're in luck!
Tonight at 6:30pm central time, the National Weather Service of Norman, OK will be having a FREE online training class for anyone to attend!
The class will be a live video webinar that you can even participate in with questions and comments.
You only need to give where you are from and your name to sign up. This is so NOAA can tally up the number of people that attended and where they are from.
Be sure to check it out and learn the very basics of what I tackle professionally in the field.
+5
ChimeraMonster girl with a snek tail and five eyesBad puns, that's how eye roll. Registered Userregular
Also, post webinar I will answer any questions you have on the content or on meteorological related things they did not cover.
+4
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Also, post webinar I will answer any questions you have on the content or on meteorological related things they did not cover.
Didn't catch the webinar, but I've got a question about a more human component of storm chasing instead of the science of it.
Traffic. How bad can it get and does it ever get bad enough to piss you off? I ask because I've done a few camping trips to the Dakotas where bad storms pop up, and once I spent a day chasing after the storms. It was fun and interesting, but I was obviously far from the only tourist doing it, and I'm sure the OK/KS area gets even more of them (I know of at least 1 company that specializes in storm chasing tours for tourist groups in that area). I felt like I might have been a hindrance to science on more than one occasion during that day which is why I've never tried to do it again, but what's your take on it from your side of the road?
I've heard of a few other studies that have shown that very small dosages of an allergen given regularly will eventually make the allergy go away, and you can get shots for pet allergies that do the same thing.
It seems that it is possible to re-train the immune system to no longer react to previous allergens.
Posts
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I'm not sure what air could do, but I'd imagine scratching would have similar effects on micro-structured materials as it does on chemical coatings. Everything wears down over time and under heavy use. Although again, coatings would be much easier to replace/repair.
That last bit was my question, they mention it should hold up better than most surface treatments that accomplish similar things.
I think because it's actually changing the molecular properties of the metal, you'd need the metal itself to wear down before the water-proofing left it. Which, at that point, you'd probably want to replace the part of anything so important as to require such a procedure to begin with.
Maybe.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Hmm, good to know.
Maybe you could develop something similar to a CD reader that can detect where the surface needs a touch up and then laser the area on the spot.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Ultrahydrophobic surfaces are just that - surfaces. It's a property of the geometry as much as the material, and will vanish when the surface is worn. However, apparently it can be resilient enough to consider using for aircraft:
http://www.seashelltech.com/pressRelease.shtml
The hydrophobic properties come from the surface texture created by nanostructures.
The fabrication process for aircraft skin involves stretching and shrinking the metal to fit as well as rolling it and heat treating it. They would not be able to pretreat the metal before it is used to skin the aircraft as the stresses on the metal would break down the structure of the metal. You also can't premake the skin because of the stresses on the aircraft and how it changes the structure of the frame.
Attempts to use a premade panel tend to end in more problems than they're worth as each aircraft has differences in their airframe that develop over time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/sun-100-millionth-photo_n_6516300.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
When I used to sail, the thinking was that faster boat coatings were ones which caused a thin layer of water to cling to the hull, so the friction was against the water and water, not the water and the hull.
Of course, this is dinghy sailing, so the thought of using nanotechnology to get more speed out of a boat costing less than five grand would be crazy. Also the above thinking might have been worked out under the same Waarhammer 40k logic as "red spaceships go faster" without the latent psychic powers to make it come true.
On a similar topic, I think a few people have at least discussed trying out NeverWet on boats to see if it would have an effect (much cheaper spray-on two part superhydrophobic coating).
edit: looked for an explanation on what would happen, the general consensus is it would move faster because you'd end up with an Air/Water boundary which would slip past each other in a two-phase flow, which is much lower resistance than fluid friction (drag). The more critical factor is the boat's hull geometry though, as the impact would be relatively minor.
looks like the air pocket can't form when an object is submerged and instead it causes a lot of drag.
It looks more like that the chemical actually took the previously smooth surface and ate it up some some to return it to a rough texture which created the drag. At the end you see the hydrophobic effects are no longer present as the substance has come off and left behind a rough texture to the hull.
Tolerancing is a bitch. The other aerospace application problem is that they are testing water at a speeds that are not practical for a plane. A plane going through rain at 560 mph (B777) is like having a droplet or water shot from a gun hitting the plane. When their pattern can withstand that application is another question. Boeing tests paint with a specially designed gun to shoot water droplets.
Icing and other chemical contamination is more complicated. Fogging is coalescence of water at the surface, and for icing, you need the water to be gone before the liquid transitions to a solid.
I've seen the superhydrophobic and superhydrophilic claim so many times over the years. Those universities just didn't have as good of marketing arm.
I don't understand the significance of this fully. Seems, neat, but I don't really get the changes it will allow.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Have you ever overcooked something?
Well now you don't have to worry about it!
Heat is no longer a problem for nanotech.
Protein drugs are expensive and difficult to administer because proteins folded the wrong way can kill you. That's the big thing for health care research.
Imagine you're parking a car, and being graded on how well you get it between the lines. Now imagine that you don't have a reverse gear. That's life in cancer drug synthesis before this procedure.
Now imagine how much better you could score if you actually had a reverse gear, and could back out of bad turns and try again. That's life in cancer drug synthesis now that we have this procedure.
... I think.
Or is the VFD a new technology itself?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2015/01/24/snowtron-and-snowzilla-how-boston-removed-snow-from-its-streets-throughout-history/v8455vpxuBjJ8KmRFDPguK/story.html
A horse drawn sled, meant to level and pack down the snow, not actually plow it. Although this photo was taken in 1901, this particular practice was done since at least 1830. Notice the cleared sidewalks, a law that had been in effect since 1823.
A horse drawn wagon plow from 1857. Note that this wasn't all that effective, or necessary, in the age of horse drawn wagons, as you could just as easily have horse drawn sleds, which is why the prior practice of just flattening the snow in the roads was much more popular.
A plow meant to clear the electric trolley rail lines from 1905.
The first car snowplow, attached to a Ford Model T, circa 1914.
Snowtron, a truck that melted snow into water, to be drained into the harbor, circa 1965. The practice of dumping excess snow into the harbor (either directly or via storm drains) was outlawed in 1997, as part of the harbor cleanup effort.
That's Snowzilla, a jet engine attached to a railroad car, made in 1980 and still in use today to remove snow from the above ground subway lines.
Not so much, problem with administering protein based drugs is that they're really, really big and it's tricky to get them across membranes - plus the ideal route for a medicine (pill taken orally) has to go via the part of your gut that specialises in breaking down proteins. Whilst there are such things as prions, they're not a major concern in biologic development as far as I'm aware. I don't see this as a method for really increasing the purity of synthesised proteins, more the yield - if you're using sheering forces to untangle them you're going to end up with quite a few misfolded fragments.
The really interesting stuff I think would come from being able to make 'hardy' enzyme systems, so if your vat of goo goes out of range (pH, temperature - either environmental or as a result of the reaction they're catalysing, etc) you're able to get most of the activity back without having to produce an entirely new batch.
Tonight at 6:30pm central time, the National Weather Service of Norman, OK will be having a FREE online training class for anyone to attend!
The class will be a live video webinar that you can even participate in with questions and comments.
To register just click this link: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5662447863490957057
You only need to give where you are from and your name to sign up. This is so NOAA can tally up the number of people that attended and where they are from.
Be sure to check it out and learn the very basics of what I tackle professionally in the field.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11393191
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Didn't catch the webinar, but I've got a question about a more human component of storm chasing instead of the science of it.
Traffic. How bad can it get and does it ever get bad enough to piss you off? I ask because I've done a few camping trips to the Dakotas where bad storms pop up, and once I spent a day chasing after the storms. It was fun and interesting, but I was obviously far from the only tourist doing it, and I'm sure the OK/KS area gets even more of them (I know of at least 1 company that specializes in storm chasing tours for tourist groups in that area). I felt like I might have been a hindrance to science on more than one occasion during that day which is why I've never tried to do it again, but what's your take on it from your side of the road?
Somehow I doubt I can treat my allergy by eating some bits of fish and a bunch of probiotic pills.
Cuz... I actually got some dental surgery coming up which means antibiotics followed by a big dose of those pills and i'm willing to give it a go.
It seems that it is possible to re-train the immune system to no longer react to previous allergens.
Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN