Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Dry Water (wikipedia.org)
543 points by tacon on Sept 11, 2018 | hide | past | favorite | 180 comments



Apparently one can make dry water with a blender - mix fine silica powder and water in a 1:19 ratio (by mass) and put it in a blender for a few minutes.

I'm not going to risk my blender to try it, so who's first?


Blenders can be replaced. I would worry more about silicosis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis


Or pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Been waiting for 25 years to use that word seriously. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilico...


You've just unironically and contextually used what's currently the longest recognized word in the English language in an unforced manner.

There has to be a prize for this.


I'm sure it gets used at dry water research meetings all the time.


Only the ones with a sense of humour.


I hear they prefer deadpan dry humor.


cough


For a minute, I thought I was on Reddit.


Please no. Reddits pun threads contantly derail interesting discussions with low effort shit.


Agreed. I’m a little envious.


My first grade teacher taught the class that word as the longest in the English language. I remember it to this day.


This was 40 years ago but we were taught: Antidisestablishmentarianism


Hm. I like this one. It feels more like one single word, and not just several long words written without spaces


It’s multiple prefixes and suffixes around “establish”.


I really wish they used that on the warning labels on the stone slabs I work with every day. It just sounds so much more extreme and terrifying than silicosis.


I'm kind of upset that you beat me to it...I guess I'll have to wait another 25 years...


Supercalifragilisticpneumonoultramicroscopics?


So what is the scrabble score for that word?


68 apparently.


It's far too long to fit on a Scrabble board.


Or a new disease we'll discover after dumping dry water into rivers and oceans and later drinking it.


This made my day, sir. The wikipedia article was interesting but this . . . chef fingers


Glad to see the fun police are still out in force here.


My guess would be the "sir" is what triggers. It reads very weird, has a bad link to the stereotypes who would use the word today, and the assuming of gender.


The guidelines ask this:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

FWIW I've also seen the topic come up on the other side, when commenters have used non-traditional pronouns.

"Assume good faith" seems reasonable here, given that the root commenter was merely being very enthusiastic with their praise.


I could have gone with Madam Tim but I worried it would be too formal.

Listen, I have been on this site from the beginning and I appreciate the generally no bullshit tone. I left reddit back when it became clear that HN was the clear successor of the reddit I used to know but killjoy bullshit like parsing "sir" is not what I'm here for either.


"TimTheTinker", I think it's a fair assumption.


if useless quips are fun then maybe the appropriate venue is elsewhere?

Pointless quips add something else we have to scroll past to learn anything or find something interesting. The goal is more wheat not more chaff.

"this was interesting" can be accomplished by upvoting.


I think HN should be able to eschew lame attempts at Reddit-style humour whilst still welcoming good-natured enthusiastic praise!


Was it pointless? Who doesn't like to hear something pleasant said about, oh, I don't know 25 years of knowing a fun word and getting to use it in context. If praise for that bugs you then you need to find some joy in your life, because I can assure you you're wasting your time right now.


"Water dust. Don't breathe this!"


Hm, and these are nanoparticles too, right? They could conceivably pass into all kinds of tissues and end up in unexpected places. Silica is pretty inert, but I’d still be leery.


Should be ok unless you're making dry water as a daily job.



That can be easily avoided though. 1) Do it outside or in a well ventilated area. 2) Wear a mask. Extra precaution) Change clothes when done.


The only video I could find of the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVAPUxSH_6Q

I'd like to see someone interact with it - is it possible to get "wet" from dry water? Can you get the water back out?


That gives an useful keyword to search for, "Aerosil". Finds among other stuff this document, which describes various uses of this silica stuff: https://glenncorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Aerosil_Sip...

Very fascinating peek to behind the curtain of cosmetics industry. The "dry water" stuff is in the last pages. Apparently their advertised "powder to cream" cosmetics are popping up in the market. They have a demo video of the stuff, but in that it doesn't seem to work all that well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmQTOU1KBkw

The commercial products using it (or similar stuff) seem to work fine though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QURu28QTlMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Bcyo4GmrY

(and now youtubes algorithms will be confused why I'm suddenly looking at makeup videos at the middle of night)


Imagine you could press it through a filter of appropriate size to block the silicate but permit the water ?


Maybe a centrifuge might separate the two?


I can't imagine it would hurt a blender. Aerosil is an extremely fluffy, almost airy, material that has some interesting physical properties on its own. It's dirt cheap to buy (around $6 a gallon - http://www.uscomposites.com/fillers.html). I use it fairly regularly - it's a thixotropic agent for epoxy resins.


I've actually tried this, but due to long-chain reactions in the molecular bonds I ended up with a mixture that was around 20% Bumcivilian by volume. I couldn't hear a thing for 20 minutes, so be careful.


Sounds like you got the reaction wrong. If you do it correctly, it should be possible to mafipulate it into powered embenzalmine nitrotamine.


This appears to be a relevant patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040028710A1/en

Many are asking how to liquefy dry water. It is stated that you can liquefy dry water upon embrocation at the time of use. I assume this means applying the dry water to your skin and applying pressure and rubbing it.


The patent getting snatched up by cosmetics and then re-discovered almost 50 years later makes me wonder how many cool advancements have been lost to industries that couldn't find any value from them.


In many fields there are waves with the patent expiration cycle, for instance 3D printing or VR.

As the patents expire there is a flurry of new research, everyone obtains new patents and it becomes impossible to create viable products again, until the patents expire and the cycle begins again.


That's very interesting, especially considering that patents were originally created to incentivize people to publish details of inventions so they could be publicly known and accessible in perpetuity.

To better uphold their original purpose, perhaps the patent rights period should be shortened to 6 years or thereabouts.


I'm not convinced you need those published details to begin with, especially to the degree to justify the enormous legal apparatus necessary to perpetuate the patent system. Its become much easier to reverse engineer almost any physical good that the original proposition "publish the technical details of your inventions" could just be a future act of good faith and less a legal requirement for a government granted monopoly on the invention. Probably the best example is Coke - theres a popularized meme of the formula being a trade secret (and thus not patented) but the actual drink has been reverse engineered at least once a decade as a publicity stunt for most of the last century. Turns out the value in Coke is in its trademark, not in its formula. That applies to almost every context most people formulate when trying to justify the continued patent regime we have in place.


Patents are only a problem for technologies with successful application. Ideally, once you have covered the R&D cost, it should be free for all.

Technologies without successful application is the interesting case. With patents, like in this case, they are locked for a while, but at least someone can pick them up. The alternative is to become lost in the archive of some R&D department.

That said, that's difficult to say. We have patents, companies haven't had to find a way to live in a modern world where obfuscation, secrecy are the primordial part of their DNA. Would we have had OSS before, or not at all? I guess that NDA and anti-compete contract laws would be much stricter maybe at a stifling level, medieval guilds style.


Ideally, once you have covered the R&D cost, it should be free for all.

Not unless the R&D cost includes all of the R&D into unsuccessful products that didn't get productized.

Also complicating the debate is pharmaceuticals, where you're also covering the cost of FDA approval, clinical trials, etc. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_drug_development this cost comes out to several billion per successful drug among established players. (A single drug is several hundred million, but most drugs fail.)


It seems like an unjustified, kind of Panglossian, assumption that all of the unsuccessful research was necessary and that the returns from patents are exactly equal to the necessary costs. Markets are powerful optimization machines, but that is too often taken dogmatically to prove we are in the best of all possible worlds.


I didn't make any such assumption. I just said that if you only cover R&D on success and fail to cover typical failures, people won't have an economic incentive for doing R&D.

In fact the returns are higher than the necessary costs, including the costs of the failures. That is one of the reasons that pharma is profitable.

However what this also means is that big pharma lobbies hard for long patent terms. And when they get them, then other fields, such as software, have to put up with them.


Their patent didn’t last 50 years; shortening the patent period would have had little effect in this case.


I was commenting on the patent cycle in general, not the dry water patent in particular.



That reminds me. There is a great talk from someone at Mozilla (Something about making an org that lasts 1000 years?). In the talk the idea is presented that things kept secret are eventually lost. This was fascinating to think about.

It's been few years since I heard that talk and I now have seen a few examples of this around me.


So readers may be surprised to find that this story does indeed explain a number of secrets, some of the important techniques that have been used by magicians onstage. Perhaps I may be considered guilty of breaking ranks and betraying trust. Actually, there’s a long, important tradition of magic being recorded and published. As my good friend Jay Marshall...has said for many years, "If you want to keep something a secret, publish it." Once in print, information is often filed, forgotten, or dismissed. Publishing a secret takes away its cachet and causes it to be overlooked. Every illusion that I’ve discussed in this book has already been explained in books. – Jim Steinmeyer, Hiding the Elephant

Human life is so far a game of cross-purposes. If we wish a thing to be kept secret, it is sure to be transpire: if we wish it to be known, not a syllable is breathed about it. This is not meant; but it happens from mere simplicity and thoughtlessness. – Hazlitt, On Depth and Superficiality


Was it someone from Mozilla, or the Long Now Foundation?


Sounds interesting. Do you have a link or something?


Your comment implies that innovation was impeded in other industries because cosmetics "snatched up" the patents. I'm not so sure. Typically, academic and institutional researches DNGA* about patents. As a nascent technology shows commercialization potential, there is incentive for the patent holders to find some way of monetizing. I would imagine (but admittedly do not know) that a cosmetics patent holder would have little reason to refuse to license to some entity operating in a very different field.


> I would imagine (but admittedly do not know) that a cosmetics patent holder would have little reason to refuse to license to some entity operating in a very different field.

That's not really the problem. The problem is that you have entrepreneurs at the early stages of looking into developing something who discover that it's patented. Just the overhead (paying attorneys) to negotiate a patent license can be thousands of dollars, more if you want to negotiate a good rate. Nobody wants to pay that at Stage 0 before you even do the legwork to determine if there is really a promising product there. But determining that can itself cost many thousands of dollars and nobody wants to do that before knowing they can secure a patent license at a reasonable rate, so you have a chicken and egg problem.

Meanwhile there are many promising alternative avenues of research that aren't already encumbered by patents, so people go there instead and come back when the patent is expired.


You are assuming the original patent holder still exists and holds the patent. And it's not held by some patent troll aggregator whose sole purpose in life is milking their large patent portfolio and who has no problem refusing to grant license on any of the individual patents if the applicant can't pay whatever they want, and have no incentive to undermine their portfolio profitability and their market worth by offering these licenses too cheap.


MDMA was originally patented 1912/1914 by Merck, but wasn't really applied for human usage until Dr Shulgin was working with it over 50 years later.


A similar thing occured with LSD. It was only manufactured by Sandoz until the patents expired and the quantities manufactured exploded.


Look at the patents held by Univerisities, very few will be utilized commercially.

On the other hand oil companies notoriously bought up patents for the express purpose of keeping them from being used in commercial application.


The patent was on file. It wasn’t like it was “lost.” The patenting is orthogonal to being “lost.” Someone could easily go prowl through old patents hunting for “new” discoveries if they were so inclined.


I wonder if it would make a good fire retardant. The water would heat up and make steam and burst out along with some CO2 trapped in it.


Drywall is used in fire safes for that reason. Drywall is made of gypsum, a mineral with water trapped inside its chemical structure. Heat releases that water, which turns into steam and cools the panel. Note that fire-rated drywall is usually glass fiber reinforced, to keep the panel together during a fire.


It wouldn't be as good as Aerogel [1] which is a similar silica nano-particle based structure. It contains air as opposed to water so conducts very little heat.

[1] http://www.aerogel.org/?p=1929


Except that aerogel, classically, is incredibly unbelievably fragile.

There's now composites out there that are supposedly better though.


This also comes to mind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite


Sounds like Aerogel would be lighter, too.


I suspect that would at least partly depend on how hazardous it is to humans, especially under high temperature/pressure or as an inhalation hazard. Is there an MSDS for dry water?


It might be similar to silica dust:

https://louisville.edu/micronano/files/documents/safety-data...

I'm not sure about any differences due to the grain size or the presence of the water. (And maybe something unusual would happen when the water inside each droplet boils due to proximity to the flame -- I don't know what would happen as the droplets rupture.)


A guy I know looked into this as part of his MS thesis:

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/28498

Reading the abstract, I don't know if he tested it as a fire retardant or suppressing agent, but that's obviously the idea. I think the challenge was more in making dry water on demand.


I work on an auto repair shop and was just thinking the same thing. We use a high pressure foam for fire suppression currently. The vendor says its a mix of soap, water, and co2. Only used it once but man is it messy!


I wonder if this sort of silica coating could be an alternative to lipid-wall cells for silicate-based extraterrestrial life.


I assume you mean cell membranes (cell walls are in found in plants, fungi and bacteria and made from polysacharides). However, it seems like an impermeable wall is less the issue than trans-membrane structures which facilitate selective transport of different species (ions, molecules, etc).


What does species mean here? I haven't seen this usage before.


Chemical species, basically just another term for a specific molecule/ion, there is a specific definition and it is apparently a bit more specific than what I thought:

https://goldbook.iupac.org/html/C/CT01038.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_species


doesn't the fact that dry water balls absorb gasses imply that the membranes are at least partially permeable?


Good point, I guess its just somewhat porous. Still missing selective transport but we're reaching now.



It doesn't say how to get the water back from the powder.


You could distill it off just like you distill normal water. Lowering the surface energy might also be a possibility. Might be able to introduce a powdered surfactant and then mix a bunch. Should then wet everything and you can sediment out the solids.


I'm guessing but, boil it and condense? I'm guessing that the great increase in volume when reaching the boiling point is enough to rupture or destroy the coating.


Dry water in cosmetics just takes a little compression — you rub it on your skin and you get the liquid within and some insubstantial amount of byproduct from the coating the liquid was stored in.

Also, the coating is gas permeable, so you could boil the liquid out.


My first guess would be to add more water.


probably by heating or crushing the powder.


> Scientists consider that dry water will prove useful in the future to help fight global warming as it was found that it could store as much as three times more carbon dioxide than ordinary water over a similar length of time.

But which is more expensive? 3x regular water, or 1x dry water?


It's moot in any case, as nobody is considering storing CO2 by dissolving it in water. Supercritical fluid is where it's at.


Sounds interesting - Do you have a link for that, or if you've got time could you explain?


There's a lot of literature on this; Wikipedia has a decent starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Geologica...

TL;DR: if you compress CO2 to above 73 bar, it becomes supercritical fluid, which has a density almost like water and which does not mix with water. If we inject this fluid into underground saline aquifers, we can trap it indefinitely. Basically exactly the reverse of producing oil and gas. In this case you're transporting and injecting pure CO2, not water with 0.1% - 1% CO2.

It's been done at large scale since the mid-1990s, so we know it's viable. Lots of research and development on details/optimization still to be done, but we know it will work and we know we can scale it up.


How is it contained in the earth? Wouldn't the pressure eventually escape, either by rupturing its container or seeping through the earth?


Same way as oil and gas has been contained for hundreds of millions of years: there is an impermeable caprock that contains the reservoir/aquifer.

In many cases, aquifers are so huge that injecting even a few million tonnes of CO2 makes only a small difference in pressure. And if the pressure did increase too much, we would drill a well deep at the aquifer bottom and take out some of the water.


Could we combine this with some kind of carbon capturing process to reduce existing CO2 in the atmosphere?


Long term, yes, that's exactly the plan. Short-term, it's going to be CO2 captured from large emission sites - powerplants, chemical processing industry, cement and steel factories etc.

Just because the CO2 concentration is so much higher in exhaust/flue gas, 10-40% versus 0.04% in the atmosphere, it's much more cost effective in the next 50-ish years.


In another thread today it was pointed out that humans produce 50 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. We have to start somewhere, but grabbing a few tons at a time may not out much of a dent in the problem.


It isn't so much for storage but for capture. If it can hold more CO2 then maybe it can be used to grab it out of the air. An aid in low-energy capture rather than long-term storage.


Throwback to the greatest debate of all time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPDdRrMVEnA


hah! i love it. But i think he is tripping his opposition up with the concept of fish not being aware they are wet since that's all they know, with the actual concept of "covered or saturated with water". He's even laughing at some point because he knows he's trying to pull one over his friends and its working :)

"Moisture is the essence of wetness" - Derek Zoolander


I like how to increase the validity of his argument he took off his shirt!


To really see why this stuff is cool you should watch the videos of people sticking their fingers in water mixed with dry water and not getting their hands wet:

https://chemistscorner.com/have-you-formulated-with-dry-wate...


Mildly NSFW


This is amazing. They both give pretty compelling arguments.

Can anyone else throw anything else into the ring? Is a fish wet?


Is a cup that's filled to the brim "wet"?

One could make an argument for why it might be acceptable to describe that cup as "wet", but in day-to-day parlance with normal people, it would be confounding to refer to a full cup as "wet". "Full" would be a much more salient description of the state of the cup. Describing it as "wet" would only cause people to go "huh?" and you'd have to explain your reasoning.

Save for mathematical terms like "isosceles triangle", words don't have inherent meaning. They're shortcuts for us to more conveniently refer to a swath of individual things or events that share some common characteristics.

This is easier to see with really abstract words. Imagine trying to define whether a specific action is or isn't "honorable", or "moral", or "meaningful". There are no axioms from which we can derive a universal litmus for whether an action fits under any of those categories. Different cultures have their own interpretations, and the peoples comprising those cultures would have differing interpretations, and even for the same person, their interpretations of a word may change from one moment to another.

With more physical terms like "wet", or "Scotsman", or "Ship of Theseus", it can be less obvious that words are abstractions for individual instances of things, and that abstractions fray at the edges. There never was such a thing as the Ship of Theseus; there were certain configurations of atoms that people thought of as "the ship" that bore a certain relationship with another configuration of atoms that people thought of as "Theseus", that was referred to as the "Ship of Theseus" for the sake of convenience, and most of the time, it sufficed.


I've seen arguments that water is a form of ash, since it is already oxidized and cannot be combusted (I guess in pure flourine it can). So I guess one could argue that fish are covered in ashes.



>They both give pretty compelling arguments.

Until someone can find a definition of "wet" from a respectable source that states an object cannot be fully submerged in a liquid, the guy sitting down has no argument. He seems to be trying to make the argument that to be wet means a liquid is clinging to you, rather that you occupying the liquid's space. Anyone?


Yup. Don't argue about defining terms, just ask the defining terms people.

Merriam-Webster: a : consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)

American Heritage: 1. Covered or soaked with a liquid, such as water: a wet towel.

OED: 1. Covered or saturated with water or another liquid.

Ironically, most dictionaries have fish and submarines easily wet, but don't do a great job of handling the situation where you just get a few drops of rain on you, when you're a little bit wet. They use "covered with," which to me suggests they're only talking about when you're thoroughly wet or submerged.


He laid out what he believes to be the defining term/condition of wet in his mind, and that's what I'm saying is bogus. He's saying completely submerging something means it's not wet. That makes no sense and there is not a single definition I could find that supports that assertion.


I was agreeing with you. :)


By those definitions you're already wet from your own composition.



There's water in the air, so everything in the air is actually wet based on that line of reasoning.


So fish are wet by virtue of everything being wet?


You could say everything is damp due to moisture in the air. Damp could be defined as mildly wet.


Are Kanye's fish sticks wet?


Hmm...so the condition of being wet is all relative! There can be no wet without dry. No hot without cold. No happy without sad.


Expected 'is water wet', was pleasantly surprised.


We must message Cody to ask him to please make and consume some dry water, for our sakes. As he has already done with heavy water, last year...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXHVqId0MQc


"It can be used as a medium for volatile compounds, as materials stored within the dry water can be reduced to powder and stabilized – reducing not only the volatility of the substance, but also its weight for transport."

Anybody know how it's possible that adding an additional substance to a chemical compound could decrease it's weight? Or does it just mean that less volatility means it can be transported in lighter containers?


I understood it as less total weight it requires, as instead of thick hermetically sealed tank needed to hold a volatile gas one could (probably) use a lighter container for less volatile substances. This of course assumes extracting the volatile substance back requires some procedure that can not happen by accident in transport.


I think https://www.soci.org/chemistry-and-industry/cni-data/2010/22... answers that:

Kept at -20°C, methane hydrate stores about as much methane per liter at room pressure as LNG in a compressed cylinder.

So, instead of a heavy LNG cylinder, I guess you can do with a Dewar flask.

Also, it seems it requires less energy and less time to create methane hydrate using dry ice.

It likely also is advantageous that this gives you a ‘fluid’ that you can easily pump around.


Assuming it's referring to lowering the density. Powder is less dense than liquid.


But doesn't that just mean "It weighs less when you carry less"? That sounds like a truism.


Huh, the dehydrated water in Space Quest actually isn't that much of a joke.


Dry water also has applications for the transportation and storage of dangerous materials. It can be used as a medium for volatile compounds, as materials stored within the dry water can be reduced to powder and stabilized – reducing not only the volatility of the substance, but also its weight for transport

That reminds me of how acetylene is stored for transport --- dissolved in acetone, which is then absorbed into a porous nonflammable substance.


My understanding is that to produce dry water all you need is a fine enough super-hydrophobic substance. It doesn't have to be silica but we know how to produce hydrophobic silica nano-particles.

The main property it has over traditional water is an increased water-gas interface which means it can absorb more gases and absorb them at a faster rate.


Can you eat it?


Yeah, modulo particle size (https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2018/01/18/EFSA-raises...) it's inert (used as an anticaking agent, additive number E551), but don't breathe it in; silicosis is not much fun.

(The FDA limit is 2% by mass of product, but it's silica. Silica is _extremely_ chemically stable.)


I was wondering if it was toxic or non-toxic. Silica gel packets say "do not eat" but they're in a ton of our food packaging so I'd hope they're non-toxic.


Food-grade additives are about avoiding adulterants, etc. I can't imagine people are going to that kind of effort for cheap hygroscopics.

Also, and here's what I suspect the real reason is; silica gel sold as a dessicant is hard (not quite as hard as silica glass, but hard), in relatively large particles, and indigestible. That's mechanically bad news for your intestines.


Could that lead to cysts in the GI tract?


Would be easy to investigate. Have desert people more cysts in the GI tract than other people? Digestive tissue is being distroyed and sheding constantly on the other hand, so probably not.


Oh right. That's a good point. I forgot about the high turnover rate of that area of the body.


No idea. I'm a doctor of mineralogy, not a doctor of medicine :-)


If you feel like eating some water, I'd recommend cucumbers instead.


Given that it is coated in silica, my guess is no. It would be like eating 5% sand.


So just a normal picnic at the beach then?


It won't injure you. Doesn't mean you'll have much fun.


Edible !== Tasty


A handful of wet sand, probably, though a little more tolerable.


Seems potentially useful for applications where you need a really high specific heat but different viscosity properties.


What happens if you add liquid water?


Reminds me a of a quote from Steven Wright the American comedian: "I bought some powdered water, but I don't know what to add."


Now I'll have to get a Dry Water Dryer to go with my Hot Water Heater.


Seems reasonable that you could also create dry heavy water. Could that be useful as a moderator for nuclear waste if mixed with powdered radioactive material?


OT - but what is with all the idiotic comments in here?


You are not helping by posting another pointless comment (or do you really want to start another round of endless 'HN is becoming reddit'?). To express your disapproval, just use downvote instead.


Ok, stupid question time... can you turn it back into regular water, and how? "Just add water?"


I'm not sure whats normally done but I answered this above. You could distill it like normal water.


How does one reverse this process?


clearly, you run the blender in reverse


Heat up the dry water.

I imagine it's not much different that driving off the water from a hydrated mineral.


Distillation would work. Might be more efficient ways, I'm not sure.


> Dry water actually consists of 95% liquid water

95% by mass, or by volume?


Mass


Thanks!


One step closer to Dehydrated Water from Space Quest I, an essential part of the Survival Kit... as I'm sure many of you here undoubtedly know.


On hikes I always think there should be freeze dried water.


Backpacker arrested in the middle east in an anpparent attempt to smuggle beauty products once thought to contain explosive substances through a security checkpoint at the Qatar airport.


How stable is it?


me: "water is wet."

internet: not necessarily, ...


I wonder how hard it is


Next they'll tell us there's such a thing as "wet towels".


My vitamix spins fast enough . . .


Do Not Eat


interesting description


This reads like a joke wikipedia article. Does anyone know if this is legitimate?


Particle stabilized emulsions are nothing surprising. And once you say nanoparticle stabilized emulsion, there's a plethora of everyday examples of air-water emulsions: shaving foam, whipped egg whites, aquafaba etc. Main difference here is that unlike e.g. proteins from egg white, the nano-silica particles do not stick to each other.


The article does have some good sources. So I think it is legitimate.


Why are there no references to the original discovery, the patent(s), or the "snatching" by "cosmetic companies"?

The link to the Daily Telegraph is broken ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7964109/Sci... instead of https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/796410... )

If it was rediscovered at a university in 2006, why are there no publications from that year?

At least the ACS is an authoratative source, perhaps that deserves a link?

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/20...


Why wouldn't it be? The mechanism to create it sounds very plausible.


It may well do, but then so do the best jokes / satire.



interesting description


The opposite of silica gel...


Powdered water... Just add water.


Would this be useful for terraforming Venus?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: