More than 800,000 views in 48 hours - New coating repels almost any liquid

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

Really neat stuff!

Ultra-Ever Dry is a superhydrophobic (water) and oleophobic (hydrocarbons) coating that will completely repel almost any liquid. Ultra-Ever Dry uses proprietary nanotechnology to coat an object and create a barrier of air on its surface. This barrier repels water, oil and other liquids unlike any coating seen before. The other breakthrough associated with Ultra-Ever Dry is the superior coating adherence and abrasion resistance allowing it to be used in all kinds of applications where durability is required.

#!

[Politicalboi]

1. How will the gang bangers be able

To mark their territory if buildings and train cars and freeway signs had this treatment. This product will cut down water usage too for clean up.

[NV Whino]

2. Okay, I'm impressed!

Can I coat my blouses and T-shirts with it?

[BainsBane]

54. to do away with coffee stains

down my front. That was the first thing I thought of, but then how would you wash the clothing?

[Warpy]

3. People are going to want to dunk their kids in it

Impressive stuff!

[htuttle]

4. I keep thinking about this movie when I read about this stuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_White_Suit

[hollysmom]

50. I loved that movie. And yes definitely a reminder how long before it disappears?

[silverweb]

5. Impressive.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Because it's "proprietary" and they don't reveal what the nanosubstance is, I'm wondering if it's the first commercially patented form of graphene oxide, which has similar hydrophobic abilities. I've been following the studies of graphene since I first became aware of it -- a near-miraculous material with some really exotic properties.

[Sienna86]

6. The toilet and my car

The first two things I will coat with this stuff.

[El Shaman]

43. My tennis shoes,

so I can move out of the dog house!!

[BainsBane]

55. toilet is an awesome idea

and I thought of the car. I'm wondering if it can damage surfaces though.

[pacalo]

7. This is great. Imagine coating the exteriors of houses with this!

Walkways, driveways & vehicles, too!

[alfredo]

35. Toilet seats in bars

[Nay]

75. Somebody come and do my windows with this stuff! nt

[iemitsu]

8. I want to coat my cars and my house with this stuff.

And maybe even my boat.
The ultimate teflon.
I wonder what the longevity of this product is? It seems pretty wonderful.

[Mnpaul]

18. It would make for a great prank

Coat a house painters brush when they aren't looking.

[iemitsu]

76. :)

[madokie]

85. You might get beat up though if you do that

Painters I know are very touchy about their brushes. They don't even want someone else to touch one of theirs

[brooklynite]

9. Before everyone digs for their credit cards...

...how is this video any different that any "As seen on TV" informercial about miracle stain removers?

[Buzz Clik]

26. Teflon.

[Junkdrawer]

10. Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I see SO much of this stuff...

potentially used so quickly that MAJOR environmental impact studies should be done BEFORE we find the stuff is out there big time and then we find the problems. Teflon???

Aside from that....

[Bjornsdotter]

13. Agree!

I looked for their letter from the EPA and there is nothing. I'd like to know how they managed to put their product on the market without a letter from the EPA giving it clearance.

[Junkdrawer]

16. If you read their FAQ, you'll see it's really easy to overapply...

with the excess forming a white powder that will wash into waterways......

We'll be eating the stuff. Does it bioaccumulate? Does it ever biodegrade?

I have a million questions and no answers.

[drokhole]

25. Right? Like how does it interact with soil...

...in case of a spill, wearing off into, whatever. Probably don't want something "hydrophobic" coating/absorbing into soil.

[Bjornsdotter]

29. Having gone through testing with the EPA

...I can tell you that I would love to know how they got around it.

I right there with you, I'd love to know how this could impact the environment.

[Junkdrawer]

33. Reading the Pandora's Box article downthread....

It may be that common "approved" materials have completely different properties as nanoparticles - including things like how they pass through the blood-brain barrier.

Huge regulatory hole.

[gtar100]

80. It's the 21st century America, baby! Who needs the EPA when we've got the

invisible hand of the marketplace to guide us. If there's any problem with it, a few people will get sick, maybe become debilitated for life or possibly die. Or maybe it'll kill off some biosphere that didn't really look all that important (at first). But hey, the rest of us will just stop buying it, the company will go out of business, and problem is solved. No need for big gov't liberal EPA to upset the apple cart too soon before a healthy profit can be made for the original investors before the business can be dumped onto somebody else who can be the scapegoat for when it all falls apart..

Ain't American-style capitalism grand?

[FSogol]

14. How about Scotchguard?

That's completely gone except the bits floating around in people's bloodstreams.

[Junkdrawer]

21. Hadn't heard until I read your post. Here's the Wiki....

Scotchgard is a 3M brand of products, a stain repellent and durable water repellent applied to fabric, furniture, and carpets to protect them from later stains.

The original formula for Scotchgard was discovered accidentally in 1952 by 3M chemists Patsy Sherman and Samuel Smith. Sales began in 1956, and in 1973 the two chemists received a patent for the formula.[1][2]

In 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began an investigation into the class of chemicals used in Scotchgard, after receiving information on the global distribution and toxicity of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS),[3] the "key ingredient"[4] of Scotchgard. The compound perfluorooctanesulfonamide (PFOSA), a PFOS precursor, was an ingredient[5] and also has been described as the "key ingredient"[6] of Scotchgard. Under USEPA pressure,[7] in May 2000 3M announced the phaseout of the production of PFOA, PFOS, and PFOS-related products.[8]

3M reformulated Scotchgard and since June 2003 has replaced PFOS with perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS).[9] PFBS has a much shorter half-life in people than PFOS (a little over one month vs. 5.4 years).[4] In May 2009 PFOS was determined to be a persistent organic pollutant (POP) by the Stockholm Convention.[10]

....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotchgard

[FSogol]

22. Yup, organic polluntants are bad news. I'm not an anti-tech guy, but I

wish someone was regulating nanotechnology.

[drokhole]

28. I think you might enjoy this article...

Pandora’s Boxes: Inside nanotechnology’s little universe of big unknowns
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/7278

With a pretty interesting podcast/discussion on it here:

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/audio-video/item/nanotechnologys_little_universe_of_big_unknowns/

I think what it comes down to is that there are a lot of unanswered (and unasked) questions.

[Junkdrawer]

34. Thanks. Read the article and will listen to the podcast.

Important stuff.

[drokhole]

45. My pleasure! I'm glad you brought up some of the areas of concern.

The podcast has some professionals who are kind of on the pro-nanotech bandwagon, and not enough questions are fielded, but it's still a pretty decent listen. The first part of it has the author reading a good deal of her essay. Also, that site usually has great input in the article's comments section.

[Junkdrawer]

58. Well, I think we now know why SETI can't find ET....

Sentient beings tend to destroy themselves by embracing advanced technologies they only partially understand.

[drokhole]

61. Ha!

[Junkdrawer]

65. Familiar with the Drake Equation???

The odds of contacting another civilization looks good - unless the time between "capable of transmitting radio waves" and "self-extinction" is small.

Attended a lecture by Philip Morrison from MIT in the 70s. The big worry then was The Bomb.

[drokhole]

70. Familiar, but not entirely clear...

Since scientists have kept upping the number of presumed planets, does that mean the odds are increasing?

Anyway, reminds me of something Terence McKenna said in regards to the way we've been burning through resources so rapidly:

"The problem is, energy can be used to destroy as well as build. So as the human enterprise has moved toward greater and greater power, and ability to manipulate the environment, the stakes in the cosmic game have risen. And now what we have is approximately $100 billion sitting in the center of the crap table, and one roll of the dice more and we’re going to either win it or lose everything. Because intelligence, if we fail, will never again reach the kind of levels on this planet that we have reached.

Why? Because we have extracted all the available metals near the surface of the Earth; an evolving species following after us will find the Earth strangely depleted of usable materials, down to the 1500-foot level; and so intelligence coming beyond us will find it just does not have the resources to make the leap to technical civilization. So it’s beginning to look like a one-shot deal."

I think the "one-shot deal" he was talking about was an intelligent, technological species leaving the planet and exploring the cosmos (and/or surviving, for that matter).

That lecture must have been something. I wasn't familiar with Philip Morrison, but it seemed like he was in the thick of it.

[Junkdrawer]

73. Great educator. Did a good series for PBS in the 80s. Died at 89 a few yrs ago.

The Drake equation is a long series of terms starting with the number of stars in the universe times the average planets per star times the average percent of planets with liquid water and on and on.

But the two terms that really whittles the number down are the average planets with life that develop technological civilizations and then the final term is the average duration of such civilizations. With a 15 billion yr. old universe, if you're only around a hundred years or so, the odds of two civilizations detecting each other becomes vanishingly small.

[Bjornsdotter]

39. Yikes!

"Because nanoparticles are so small, they can slip past the body’s various barriers: skin, the blood-brain barrier, the lining of the gut and airways. Once inside, these tiny particles can bind to many things. They seem to build up over time, especially in the brain. Some cause inflammation and cell damage. Preliminary research shows this can harm the organs of lab animals, though the results of some of these studies are a matter of debate."

This paragraph is not inspiring confidence in me.

Thanks for the links!

[Junkdrawer]

44. Yikes indeed....

If the responses to this thread are typical, many, many will grab the stuff for the sexy uses and we'll all be part of yet-another Grand Experiment.

[drokhole]

48. I'd say...

Last edited Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

...another thing I was wondering about, which they didn't address in the article or the podcast discussion, is how they interact with our microbiome - which we are only now beginning to grasp the importance of. Like how some of our habits upset key bacterial balance (and here), and just how effective tending to/restoring that bacterial balance/diversity can be in treating illnesses.

[alfredo]

36. Sulfur

[2pooped2pop]

82. yeah, that's what I was thinking

It's cool as hell and can be used for hundreds of things but what happens when it goes into the ground water and stuff like that?

A little bit is one thing but everyone will be using this stuff. Does it stay put? Does it eventually wash off?

Cool as hell, but I feel like I would like more answers.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. Republicans are going to be buying this stuff in bulk!

They've been looking for a way to keep their verbal diarrhea from sticking to them for decades. It's their dream come true.

[Thor_MN]

12. I want this sprayed inside and out on my car

[Ikonoklast]

17. Especially on the windows. I might need to look into this stuff.

[Thor_MN]

24. No kidding, the stuff they use on the roads now turns wind sheild opaque in about 50 feet

I think I'm well into my third gallon of washer fluid this winter.

[RZM]

15. Yes, but what about a non-nutritive cereal varnish?

That repels the milk? That's what we really need.

[tammywammy]

37. Just don't put it on your sled.

[FleetwoodMac]

19. I wonder how long swimmers have been incorporating this technology in their suits...

FINA banned the full body polyurethane and neoprene suits after the 25 world records made in the 2008 Olympics, resulting in a significantly lower performance in the last five years.

[BainsBane]

56. nanoparticle testing?

may be called for.

[FleetwoodMac]

77. I fear you may be right...

If not now, then in the very near and foreseeable future.

[jmowreader]

81. Hopefully this stuff is harmless to humans...

...because you just know the competitive swimmers are going to mix it with a cream base and apply it to their bodies.

[FleetwoodMac]

84. I didn't think of that, but now that you mentioned it...

I can't help but wonder if it has already happened.

A cursory glance at the FAQs leaves me with the impression that the product is less than safe for direct human application.

22. Are there environmental or safety concerns during application or after the coating has dried?
Once dry, there are no known environmental concerns. The coating has been found to be safe for use in nonfood
contact areas of food processing plants. The coating meets FDA and USDA regulations for those types of applications.
When applying the coating, we recommend using gloves and avoiding skin contact as it will dry out the skin.
Goggles for eye protection and respirators with P100 pre-fi lters and organic vapor cartridges are also recommended
during the spray-on application.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. First thought - Shower stall....

No more chance of black mold.

[Buzz Clik]

23. Just keep it off the floor.

[haikugal]

31. My first thought too!

[TwilightGardener]

27. Anti-corrosive coating? Maybe for waterproofing lumber too?

Wonder if it can be submerged, or flexes when the underlying materials contract and expand?

[rwsanders]

53. Similarly, I was thinking it would be a perfect anti-fouling for boats and ships.

[shireen]

30. does that mean i never have to clean it?

No more dishes.
No more carpet stains.
No more windows to clean.

No more laundry?

Really? I'm sold!

[dlwickham]

32. you're supposed to use googles, gloves and protective gear when you apply the stuff

I'll take the risk of my stuff getting wet

http://io9.com/ultra-ever-dry/

[JimDandy]

60. Makes sense - we're 95% water. Sounds more like a poison to humans.

[Tab]

38. Man, will this keep dogshit off my shoes?

If so, I'm hooked.

[d_r]

78. that was one of my first thoughts too

[alfredo]

40. MIT has something in the same ball park.

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-mit-prof-creates-major-ketchup-bottle-upgrade-20120524,0,2644692.story

[shanti]

41. wow!!

Last edited Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:38 AM - Edit history (1)

my mind is racing with ideas for applications of this stuff! the roofing and automotive industries come to mind immediately.

[El Shaman]

42. Wow!!

Can I advertise my fancy (GOPTea) 'pinatas' here for free too!!!???

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

49. Seriously. If you think this is my product, you're giving me FAR to much credit.

[greytdemocrat]

46. Coat an Attack Sub

With this stuff and it should fly thru the Ocean...

[Junkdrawer]

47. Too bad the military didn't snap this up and make it a national defense secret....

We might have bought time to properly study the stuff before, thanks the the almost assured mass use starting NOW, we find the stuff omnipresent in the environment.

[OnyxCollie]

51. I want that!

That's amazing!

[TroubleMan]

52. I wanna dip.....

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[blue neen]

57. Boy, it sure would be great to never stain the deck again!

One has to wonder, though, about any possible harmful effects.

[Junkdrawer]

59. Aww...just spray it everywhere and worry later.....

Look Martha it repels water! Say, why is little Johnny convulsing over there?

Check upthread.

[drokhole]

64. "Spray them all and let Nature sort it out."

Possible product tagline?

[dobleremolque]

62. Graffiti abatement....

My city oughta buy it by the railroad tank-car load....

[NBachers]

63. Rubbermaid Clean & Dry Plunger with unique NeverWet coating

http://www.rubbermaid.com/Category/Pages/ProductDetail.aspx?CatName=CleaningUtility&SubcatId=Plungers&Prod_ID=RP092048&utm_campaign=bazaarvoice&utm_medium=SearchVoice&utm_source=RatingsAndReviews&utm_content=Default

[Mira]

66. I am THRILLED and just plain happy

to have lived long enough to see this.
I could see oodles of apps for this in my little life.
Amazing and needed.

[Demo_Chris]

67. Their website, lots of answers there.

http://www.spillcontainment.com/everdry

I want it! This is gonna be huge.

You know, we talk about water conservation, something like this could potentially make a significant difference.

[applegrove]

68. What happens when you ingest some of those nanoparticles into your lungs?

That is what scares me.

[Junkdrawer]

69. Apparently, nanoparticles pass easily through the blood-brain barrier and cause brain swelling.

But they really repel water! So who cares?

[Ian David]

71. ...

[Ian David]

72. I'm going to coat my penis with this so I don't need lotion to masturbate with anymore! n/t

[Junkdrawer]

74. I said it causes BRAIN swelling.....

Oh wait.....

[d_r]

79. if it is safe

I was thinking of a tent - I wonder what it would do to the morning dew build up.

[boston bean]

83. After the great shovel out.

I wonder if it would work on cars covered with snow?

[Agony]

86. FFS the basecoat is 66% XYLENE