$1,000 Spray Makes Gadgets Waterproof 278
Rio writes "A new $1,000 spray claims to protect notebook computers, iPods, cell phones and other electronic gadgets from liquid, making them completely waterproof, a Local6.com report says. A creator of the technology said it could be used for emergency first-responders, bio-medical devices and historic preservation." This might be a bit of a flashback from last year.
$1000 (Score:2, Insightful)
sooo it's a $$$ conformal coat? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Awesome. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget to install the special 1000 ft antenna (the iTenna) on your iPhone since microwaves have a hard time traveling through water.
Re:Not a Spray (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about this logically for a second. If by "surfaces" he means the circuit board itself, then this is called conformal coating and has been around for years. It is also not practical in small consumer electronics. If he means the surface of the device, then this requires sealing the entire device and making it fully waterproof (and not very useful).
By fact, by definition water damages electronics by shorting contacts together. If water is allowed to run in and out of the device, the contacts must be sealed.
I think that faq is a little disingenuous.
Batteries (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not a Spray (Score:5, Insightful)
The device is not sealed against water (i.e. it's not wrapped in celophane), so water can flow freely throughout the device. At the same time, contacts are not sealed, meaning the water that can flow freely though-out the device can short the contacts that have not been covered (battery, headphone, button, etc...), essentially destroying the device (by burning out components, batteries, etc...).
In otherwords, the coating only keeps water off the surface of a device that by itself isn't prone to water damage to begin with? I.e. all the plastic-coated IC's out there will last just fine under water, as long as you don't apply power to them.
What about moving surfaces, such as the speaker or microphone diaphram? Those devices are sensitive to water (the felt or paper used probably won't stand-up to water), and the high-frequency makes it unlikely that the coating will adhere and stay on.
Can this coating be applied to a thouch-sensitive surface? Can it be applied to the lens of a camera without severely distorting the optics?
I once dropped my phone in a bowl of soup, and the phone told me I had plugged an unrecognized peripheral into the headphone jack. It took a couple hours of carefully disassemling, cleaning, and drying before I got it working again (luckily nothing burned-out), and it sounds like this coating wouldn't have helped (since the contacts within the headphone jack wouldn't have been coated anyway) . Nothing like spending $1000 on absolutely nothing.
Prediciton (Score:3, Insightful)
$1000? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not a Spray (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not to spoil a good joke, but why not? (Score:1, Insightful)
I've never had much success talking to my buddy underwater. There's so much background noise from currents, overhead boats, bubbles etc. that it's too difficult to decipher bubbly speech.
Full face masks are the way forward. They cover your face forehead to chin with a glass plate, allowing more comfortable breathing and - more importantly for commercial divers - use of integrated comms systems. Just pop a bluetooth headset inside the mask and you're sorted!
Assuming the rest of the iPhone could survive the pressure, would the touchscreen work? I'd expect the water to ruin its capacitence-based touchscreen.
Re:Not to spoil a good joke, but why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're right. There's no way a normal, sensitive touch screen would work underwater at pressure (more than 10 feet below the surface).
What would be cool is some sort of underwater keyboard you could use to text each other. While you could theoretically communicate with Morse Code (tapping on your tank) it would be very difficult since it would be based on timing (impossible to hold a tone). Or you could learn sign language which would also be very difficult if you want to have anything like a conversation.
Seriously, any investors out there: if you make something like a waterproof keyboard with a built-in LCD screen (similar to some existing gaming keyboards) that could communicate to other keyboards scuba divers would buy it, probably at significant profit to you.
Re:Not a Spray (Score:3, Insightful)
The salt and other minerals left behind when the water is gone grabbed me as why most of what's being discussed is silly on here.
It does you little good to seal up a laptop or iphone, all to have it full of calcium or salt in a few dips.
Re:Awesome. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you kidding, or are you missing the point of a post on purpose, so that you can passionately pursue your favorite off-topic discussion?
It just so happens that I started out as a Physicist, so upon reading the GGP post I found it very amusing that its author did not seem to realize that most of communication devices are on or around the microwave part of the spectrum and would thus have some familiar properties (like water absorption). I do remember that some books tell you microwaves start at 1m, while others at 30cm, but this is totally besides the point. Even if you agree that you are not talking about microwaves, but near-microwave radio waves it is still true that you will find near-microwave properties. You see, in most areas of physics (except quantum) you don't usually find discontinuities.
To go back to your specific problem with my post, I do not consider Wikipedia an authoritative source, and I certainly do not conduct research by reading wikipedia. However, how do you propose I post about a pretty simple fact on slashdot? Do I present my credentials and claim myself an authority? Do I cite (MLS of course) 1st year Physics books from my library? Do I quote a wildly popular web encyclopedia on a simple fact I am sure is correct? What would you do?