I ran across an eye-opening report this week, "Nearly perfect fluidity: from cold atomic gases to hot quark gluon plasmas". Not exactly the area that I normally work in although I have mentioned before that subatomic physics can contribute to polymer science. Instead it the abstract that got me to start reading the article.
Liquid viscosity drops with increasing temperature, while gas viscosity increases with temperature. This means that for a fluid, there is a minimum viscosity, probably in a supercritical region. One way to scale viscosity across fluids is with the kinematic viscosity (h/n, h is the viscosity, n is the density) but density is hard to measure/define for the quark gluon plasmas (I'll just have to take the authors word on it) so a better option is divide by the entropy, s. And then using string theory (which we all know is better called "the string hypothesis" since its never been tested), it's proposed that h/s >= h-bar/(4pkb), (kb is Boltzmann's constant). So there we have it - an absolute lower limit for viscosity.
Water at 226 bar and 650 K is still well above the limit, but that doesn't surprise me given the strongly associative nature of H2O molecules. 4He gets much closer at 2.2 bars and 5.1 K, but the champ is the quark gluon plasma at conditions of 880 x 1032 bar and 2 x 1012 K. The rest of the article is mostly in the realm of exotic physics, at which point I returned to my regularly scheduled reading. I'm not going to run a those conditions in any extruders.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
It's Monday. I need a good laugh...
and found it here:
"One of my favorite thinkers, Will McDonough, is the leading thinker of ecological architecture. Among other achievements, he rebuilt the famed River Rouge plant of Ford, the very model of a modern major assembly line, into a sustainable model with pavers instead of asphalt, natural lighting, and grass on the roof. He is urging a technology cycle similar to a biological cycle, where manufactured products can reduce back into the ecosystem. An example is to redo plastics based on organic carbon, not petrochemicals. These plastics look and feel like petro-plastics, and yet dissolve when thrown away.The whole plastics industry can transform itself into a new range of products." (Emphasis added.)
Wow!! Organic plastics! What a concept.
Another wow!! They "dissolve". They just go away. All the mass is just gone. It's not like they would "dissolve" into CO2 or anything. And somehow they know when they've been thrown away. Too smart for me.
"One of my favorite thinkers, Will McDonough, is the leading thinker of ecological architecture. Among other achievements, he rebuilt the famed River Rouge plant of Ford, the very model of a modern major assembly line, into a sustainable model with pavers instead of asphalt, natural lighting, and grass on the roof. He is urging a technology cycle similar to a biological cycle, where manufactured products can reduce back into the ecosystem. An example is to redo plastics based on organic carbon, not petrochemicals. These plastics look and feel like petro-plastics, and yet dissolve when thrown away.The whole plastics industry can transform itself into a new range of products." (Emphasis added.)
Wow!! Organic plastics! What a concept.
Another wow!! They "dissolve". They just go away. All the mass is just gone. It's not like they would "dissolve" into CO2 or anything. And somehow they know when they've been thrown away. Too smart for me.
Monday, November 09, 2009
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?
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.)
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.
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.
Friday, November 06, 2009
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?
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?
Thursday, November 05, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
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,...
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,...
Friday, October 23, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, October 19, 2009
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.
The new guy on the web: The Rheol World.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
