superhydrophobic product

[Dave Gudeman]

Here is a company that seems to be threatening to come out with a superhydrophobic spray. No promises and no details that I could find, but the product videos are cool.

Obviously, there are lots of applications for keeping things dry on boats, but I think the big ones are probably bottom coats (for both pest control and performance) and keeping core materials dry. If only it comes out cheap enough.

The name of the company is Ross Technology Corporation and the product is called Never Wet.

[gonzo]

Is there a link for the company?

[Dave Gudeman]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Is there a link for the company?

Oops . Added it is in the first post. It's Never Wet.

[CDK]

A product with such properties would also be the ultimate anti-fouling, anti-seize and once-in-a-lifetime car wax.
But like always, there is a catch: how do you get it to adhere to a surface?

[John Perry]

From the website they claim a water surface contact angle of 160 to 175 degrees, compared with a waxed car surface which they say has a contact angle of 90 degrees. Doesnt that mean that if a floating boat hull had a waxed surface, the wetted surface area would be exactly as calculated by a naval architect using hydrostatics software, whereas with most real boat hull surfaces the wetted surface must be a tiny bit greater since surface tension drags water up the surface near the waterline. With this coating, the water is going to get dragged down the surface rather than up, but presumably still not by any great distance. If this understanding is correct (please tell me if you know better) then one would think there might be a reduction in skin friction drag, but only a small reduction for any realistically sized boat.

I can see that if this works it could be very useful for keeping windows clear on boats, and for that matter for keeping windows clear on anything that has windows.

[Leo Lazauskas]

Originally Posted by John Perry

From the website they claim a water surface contact angle of 160 to 175 degrees, compared with a waxed car surface which they say has a contact angle of 90 degrees. Doesnt that mean that if a floating boat hull had a waxed surface, the wetted surface area would be exactly as calculated by a naval architect using hydrostatics software, whereas with most real boat hull surfaces the wetted surface must be a tiny bit greater since surface tension drags water up the surface near the waterline. With this coating, the water is going to get dragged down the surface rather than up, but presumably still not by any great distance. If this understanding is correct (please tell me if you know better) then one would think there might be a reduction in skin friction drag, but only a small reduction for any realistically sized boat.

That sounds quite plausible to me.
Of course, there is the extra weight of the coating (presumably quite small),
and whether it increases the roughness of the hull.
Some manufacturers of marine coatings claim big reductions of skin-friction,
but often their experiments are very biased.
For example, comparing a rusty hull with one that has been sprayed with their product.
In that case the coating can reduce roughness and it is no
surprise that skin-friction is reduced. On very smooth surfaces skin-friction increases.

Would this new product do something similar?
And on a very smooth hull, would it increase the roughness?
I don't know, but I would like to see *independent* experiments.
I certainly wouldn't trust results if they were only available from
the manufacturer.

Originally Posted by John Perry

I can see that if this works it could be very useful for keeping windows clear on boats, and for that matter for keeping windows clear on anything that has windows.

I wonder if it would stop windows steaming up, or whether
the glass would just clear faster after droplets had formed?

Please post more on this stuff if you can find it.
(No need to give us their advertising guff, though:
it's certain to be biased).

[PAR]

We'll see eventually what this stuff is, but my bet is it's a high concentrate of cyanoacetate activated polyurethane. I am curious about film thickness, product weight, hardness, elongation, etc. Is a MSD available yet? If it's what I think it is, the film could be pretty thin (10 mils), but a little heavy for a coating with very good elongation. We'll see, but as is often the case with products presented this way, there's a good reason they're not telling everyone what it is and the physical attributes, as it's just a rehashing of an existing product or has a bit less then the advertising hype suggests.

[CDK]

Originally Posted by PAR

.... there's a good reason they're not telling everyone what it is and the physical attributes, as it's just a rehashing of an existing product or has a bit less then the advertising hype suggests.

Beautifully phrased PAR!

[daiquiri]

And anyways, I want to see how it behaves after few months in sea water, in the southern Med or (much worse) in tropical seas.

[Willallison]

Superhydrophobic... isn't that just someone who's really scared of the water??

[PAR]

Yep, pretty much Will . . .

[Leo Lazauskas]

Originally Posted by daiquiri

And anyways, I want to see how it behaves after few months in sea water, in the southern Med or (much worse) in tropical seas.

Yes, but the web site mentions nano-particles. They can fix any problem imaginable.

[Ad Hoc]

Originally Posted by Leo Lazauskas

... mentions nano-particles. They can fix any problem imaginable.

What about the Euro, or the US Trade deficit?

[PAR]

Originally Posted by Leo Lazauskas

Yes, but the web site mentions nano-particles. They can fix any problem imaginable.

maybe my bald spot . . .

[Leo Lazauskas]

Originally Posted by PAR

maybe my bald spot . . .

I stand corrected: you need to implant tufts of nanotubes for that problem.

I'm getting a sticker for mine:
Objects viewed in bald spot may appear larger than they are.