How NOT to Introduce a Product

Scrolling through the chemical headlines, a ran across one in Chemical Week which mentions that Total has a new metallocene catalyst available. The article is pay-access only (as is most often the case with Chemical Week, that's fine, I don't have a problem with that). Being that metallocene catalysts are a only a curiosity for me and not something that I actively work with (except for whatever scraps are stuck in the PE that we process), I'm not going to buy this one, but I could read enough to know that they are calling the catalyst Lumicene. Googling "Lumicene PE" gets 21 hits total, only 2 of which are relevant, and guess what site they are on??

Chemical Week.

So Total is introducing a new product, but the only way to find out about it is to have to pay money to a third party. Doesn't this strike you as...........wrong?

Bilski is on the SCOTUS docket today

As mentioned previously, Bilski will be heard by the Supreme Court. Today is the the day, but the decision won't come down for months.

The case concerns an issued patent over a business method (regarding the use of hedges) and whether it is patentable matter. In the narrowest sense, the case is rather boring. I think the patent claims are poorly written and should be rejected, but the real question that isn't written on any brief before the court, is how widely the court will expand their decision. Many contend that it could be so expansive as to be the death knell for all software patents. I can't see it going that far as Congress has already clearly stated that they would like as many things patentable as possible.

Right now the Court of Appeals has establish a "bright line" rule that all patents must show a physical or machine transformation, and they like the test as it is cut and dry - no judgment is needed. This was also the case a couple of years ago when the KSR case came up on deciding what is (non)obvious - that unless there was specific written words describing or predicting what was in the application, it was considered nonobvious. Also a bright line test, but one that was thrown out. I suspect the same will happen here - the bright line test will be tossed and judgment will be needed.

The issue is (somewhat) personal to me as I did in the past apply for such a patent (WO/2001/092840), although it was dropped after my employer killed the program, so it never issued.

No matter what the outcome, the lawyers (even the one unhappy with the decision) will be happy as there will be lots more to argue about in the future. (Something that you and I know very well, something that they know very well, but not something that they know that we know very well.)

Tier 1 Auto Suppliers are doing o.k. enough

Lear is coming out of bankruptcy, rather quickly, as are a lot of other supplies. The link has some good stats about the health of the auto supply industry in general. Very few Chapter 7 filings (going out of business) and lots of Chapter 11 filings (reorganization of debt). There is still plenty of pain and job losses, but it could be worse for an industry totally ignored by a government that was willing to do anything to keep the Big 3 going, a government totally unaware that the manufacturers do high level assembly of systems and subsystems built by others. I expected worse.

Maybe they were hoping for a trickle down effect - the opposite of what they were hoping in the housing market with a "first time buyer" tax credit, which now has been broadened to anyone moving up in the market. Not enough trickle, I guess, and certainly car sales have slumped since the cash-for clunkers program expired.

This could get ugly

According to Plastics News (11/2/09), ASTM is looking to change the SPI recycling codes that appear on many plastics parts, such as:

Possible candidates for getting their own identify are polycarbonate (why bother if the BPA scare is going to put this plastic away?) polylactic acid (since all the PET recyclers hate the mixed streams), and LLDPE. They are also thinking of tightening up the definitions for each resin so that only a certain % of a coating can be on the bottle.

I certainly do understand that these polymers need to be kept separate. They are thoroughly incompatible with each other not only thermodynamically, but also in processing temperatures, drying requirements, screw design, die design... The only way to avoid those issues is to incinerate them all. The flames don't care. They are an equal opportunity oxidizer.

But this could rapidly go the way of stainless steel, aluminum and other metals. For steels, you have the 300 series, the 400 series, etc. Even with something like 316 SS, you can also have 316L (low carbon) and 316 LS (surgical grade), and of course other numbering schemes exist.

Sorting 11 or more grades of plastic would be overwhelming as it would require 11 separate bins, and could easily result in more people not even attempting to keep up with it and just chucking it all, which would defeat the whole purpose, wouldn't it?

Another part of my childhood - gone!

It's so nice to see polymer technology being used to produce such useful items, such as spitballs.

Isn't it enough that us old timers have to lecture young people about how we use to have to get up to change the TV channel? How we would actually go to this place called a library if we needed to do research for a school project? How we would have to buy a whole album of music by one artist even if we only wanted one song?

Now we can add to the list the tales of how we would make spitballs by chewing on paper or tissues, how getting the right amount of saliva and paper was essential (see, we were budding rheologists and didn't even know it!). Now that is all done for them. Oh the loss.

Times move on.

UV Scale-Up

This past summer I spent a huge amount of time developing a UV-cured coating. Now that the lab work is done, we've started scaling it up.

You might initially think that the scale-up should be easy since there are none of the nasty surface/volume ratio scaling that normally occurs in reactors and all the implied heat/mass transfer/buildup issues that go with it. This is simple exposing a thin wet coating to a UV lamp for a short period of time.

But even in something as simple as this, there are a mess of potential problems. First off, the curing lamps are even the same. Different manufacturers, different bulbs (and output spectra), different wattages and therefore different heat outputs. UV curing is more than just absorption of a UV photon. That is merely the initiation step. The remaining polymerization, crosslinking and termination steps are all subject to temperature conditions that (generally) do not plague the photoinitiation.

The coating methods are not the same either - in the lab I used a notched bar, but the pilot line has a type of roll coater. The low viscosity of the formulation that worked so well in the lab became problematic for the coater, so all the plans of looking at different coat weights ending up as something for the next round. We took what we could get.

Nonetheless, it appears that the formulation cured quite well, quite a bit faster than in the lab, although it does have a gamut of testing to run. Thank goodness we didn't have to look into other curing options: multiple exposures, different reflectors, bulb distance,...

Polymeric Auto Glass

Certainly this is a trend that is a long time coming, but the recent increase in the MPG targets are a de facto requirement for polycarbonate glazings. As much as PC will reduce car weight, it will also free up design. Look at the Qarmac concept car:
Those C-shaped windows just can't be done in glass. How much innovative design is being stifled because the glazings are still glass? Outside of the weight considerations, how much does that hurt aerodynamics?

Naturally, Bayer and SABIC, the two biggest manufacturers of PC are in the game, but in slightly different ways, although both are operating subsidiaries (BMS and Exatec respectively) which provide the materials. PC can't be used straight as it doesn't have the scratch resistance or weatherability (it will oxidize and turn yellow courtesy of the photo-Fries rearrangement) without a coating. BMS is going with a wet coat while Exatec is going with a plasma coating.

Sun/moon roofs are already being made so obviously the UV protection is solved to some degree. Given the repeated rubbings and abuse that windshields take, I would expect that application to be the last to go, but the sidelights should provide lots of fun in the meantime.

Patent Quality and Value

For reasons that I don't understand [1], assessing patents is a hot topic this week. Two new companies are out with assessment toolsPatent Site and Patent Board.

Assessing patent quality is much like assessing the quality of research articles - any logical approach is fraught with loopholes and errors. The most common basis for the analysis is to look at the citations of other patents, as these citations establish links to other relevent work. The more times a patent is cited, the better it must be (which implicitly assumes that all patent examiners cite all the relevent patents and no irrelevent ones). Certainly this is true for breakthrough patents, but for other patents that represent smaller increments of improvement, that would not be the case. And with patents, far more than with research reports, there is an economic aspect that outweighs all other aspects. Patents for blockbuster drugs are not cited nearly as much as their economic impact on the company would suggest.

An additional challenge that is becoming more important all the time is that patents can be assigned to others (exclusively or not). Patent Site claims to address this, but I don't see how that can be done given that most of these agreements are not public.

Lastly, I'm not surprised at all that these two companies come up with different results. Patent Site lists the top ten chemical companies as

1) BASF
2) Bayer
3) DuPont
4) Dow
5) Sumitomo
6) Mitsubishi
7) DSM
8) Solvay
9) Syngenta
10) AkzoNobel

while Patent Boards list is

1) DuPont
2) BASF
3) Dow
4) Honeywell
5) Nitto Denko
6) SABIC
7) 3M
8) PPG
9) Chisso
10) Air Products

DuPont, Dow and BASF are near the top of both lists, but the other 7 candidates aren't even the same! Obviously, there field still needs additional work.

[1] I'd would guess that companies probably will use this as a PR tool to push the value of their portfolios, and since this analysis is so much more sophisticated than just counting up patents, it can used that much more so.

Company!

The number of rheology blogs is doubling everytime I look! At this rate we going to be outnumber the political blogs by Christmas.

The new guy on the web: The Rheol World.

DIodes, Diodes Everywhere

This is the week of the diode. Not the standard electrical diode that only lets current flow in one direction. Those exist everywhere - your computer is loaded with them and you can't recharge your cell phone without one. Instead, this is about rectifying other actions that are much more difficult to control.

Take heat for instance. In standard conduction patterns, it flows from hot to cold. But now if can be made to flow in one direction based on geometry, not temperature. By using two components, one with good conductivity at high temperatures but not low, and the other component with the opposite properties, the magic occurs.

A similar result (at a gross level) was found with a photonic crystal that directs microwaves in only one direction.

Since this is a rheology blog, proposing a flow rectifier would be appropriate. Check valves already exist (first in cardiac organs, then in human creations). A way to control reptation would be neat, and could certainly lead to some unusual rheology - it would take much longer for a given stress to relax. I'm sure the "much" longer could be quickly quantified, but I'm not the greatest at reptation theory and way to busy in the lab to hash through it today.

The Dog and Pony Show

You don't have to work (or be in grad school) for too long before you start getting asked to help with a dog-and-pony show. Being a service organization, we tend to more than most. That doesn't necessarily follow, does it? Let me try and clarify. Most of our work is short term (3 months or less) projects. Some of the projects will immediately lead to another, but most often not. Instead, there is a future project down the road. So we need to keep ourselves in their minds, and also look for new clients. The economic downturn has decreased the size of the projects and upped the time between.

Today's presentation was a doosey. Four of us gave 30 minutes background talks, followed by four 30 minute hands-on working sessions. Thank goodness I can just type this and not have to talk anymore. My voice is gone, my introversion character is rapidly rebelling and I need time to myself to decompress. Thank goodness the Twins game (#163 out of 162) is on in an hour. That and a beer or two.

I always have mixed emotions talking about rheology. I absolutely love the subject and can go on way too long, but the problem is that it is a very complicated and difficult subject. I keep thinking of that Einstein quote, about how if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it. Some aspects of rheology can be explained simply, but a lot can't. And I don't think it's just me. I've yet to see an sub-undergraduate level explanation of time-temperature superposition.

Regardless, the day was certainly worthwhile - most people do not think of rheology, only gettin as far as viscosity. Looking behind the first curtain to see the storage and loss modulus is so informative (but for eternal enlightment, one must go the through the wall and seek the relaxation spectra!) Lots of good questions, which caused the schedule to lapse. Not a problem and that clearly showed we were getting somewhere. That doesn't pay the bills however, so we will soon see if we really hit the target.

Public to Private and Back Again

The motions of the business world never seem to stop, and so to the amusement. It's fun to watch a public company go private only to become public later. Kraton Polymers is the latest example. Originally part of Shell Chemical, they were spun off, bought out by a private group, and now are going public again with a $230 Million IPO.

The deal that still amuses me is KKR, the giant private equity firm. After spending it's entire corporate life inleverage buyouts and taking companies private, they announced an IPO themselves back in 2007, (although it never came go fruition).