backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 42 comment(s) - last by DASQ.. on Aug 1 at 12:48 PM

Golden Shellback Coating on Smartphone  (Source: NMI)
Coating pioneered at Northeast Maritime Institute protects electronic devices from water

You can currently protect things like your cell phone from water, but typically, that requires bulky cases that obscure screens and controls in the name of protection. Sid Martin, Director of Technology at Northeast Maritime Institute (NMI), started a quest to find a way to protect electronic devices from water without adding bulk to the devices.

Martin's quest led to the development of Golden Shellback Coatings. The coating protects electronics exposed to water and can resist rain and humidity as well. Items protected with Golden Shellback Coatings are able to continue operating when submerged and can operate afterwards as well.

The coating provides a near hermetic seal that is uniform and protects the entire device. Details on how the coating is applied are scarce, but the Golden Shellback website does say that the coating is not a spray. The coating has to be applied in a piece of equipment. Inside the equipment electrical contacts are not coated, but the surfaces inside are sealed. This allows water to be able to run in and out of the device.

The process is available now, but NMI says that the distribution system for the process is not in place. The coasting can be applied in small volumes in the NMI lab in Massachusetts. NMI expects that it will be 4 to 6 months before the facility is online and ready to service customers. Exactly how much the process will cost is unknown. The Golden Shellback coating is now available to companies for application during the manufacturing process.

The coating itself is clear and colorless to light gray in appearance. Once applied the coating is resistant to solvents up to 175 C. The coating thickness is 1 micron or thicker once applied. Water absorption by the coating is less than 0.1% after 24 hours. In addition to repelling water, the coating also repels oil, synthetic fluid, dust, dirt, and hazardous materials.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I know of one use
By oab on 7/30/2008 3:34:42 AM , Rating: 4
Discovery Channels "Deadliest Catch" according to their behind the scenes show goes through 40-50 HDTV cameras per season which die due to corrosion because of water getting in.

If it works on cell phones, I'm sure it will work on cameras. It could save them thousands of dollars per season in equipment expenses.




RE: I know of one use
By masher2 (blog) on 7/30/2008 3:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
The camera body itself might benefit somewhat from this, but I doubt you can run a camera lens through the process without affecting the optics.


RE: I know of one use
By AnnihilatorX on 7/30/2008 4:38:02 AM , Rating: 3
Camera lens are made with glass anyway, you don't need to coat the lens itself. May be a bit near the edges between the lens body and the lens.


RE: I know of one use
By AnnihilatorX on 7/30/2008 4:38:50 AM , Rating: 2
I do not think however the coating would endure water pressure of say 10m underwater


RE: I know of one use
By FITCamaro on 7/30/2008 7:42:16 AM , Rating: 5
I don't think cameramen are worried about the camera corroding if its fallen overboard.


RE: I know of one use
By rtrski on 7/30/2008 8:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
Camera lenses also frequently have thin-film coatings for anti-glare, UV absorption, and aberration correction. And these coatings can and are affected by water exposure. Dissolved salts will leave rings. Even tap water's residual calcium and added chlorine can both leave rings and etch these coatings somewhat.

Not to say the subject article isn't a good idea, especially if it brings coatings into a more mainstream price range. But hasn't the military been conformal coating electronics for salt fog operation for quite some time now?


RE: I know of one use
By Clauzii on 7/30/2008 12:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
I would think that satellites would/could use it too. Might be able to use less heating power then.


RE: I know of one use
By rcc1 on 7/30/2008 2:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
In general, the problem in space is getting rid of heat.


RE: I know of one use
By Clauzii on 7/30/2008 8:08:57 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, what!? As I remember, they install heating equipment on satellites. This equipment is often started up when the destination is reached. It's called 'walking it up'.


RE: I know of one use
By DASQ on 8/1/2008 12:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think he means for larger things like cooling the engines. You have little to no conduction in space to vent the heat.


RE: I know of one use
By JonnyDough on 7/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: I know of one use
By masher2 (blog) on 7/30/2008 11:47:56 AM , Rating: 2
They may have a way to protect certain areas of a treated device from being coated.


RE: I know of one use
By crleap on 7/30/2008 12:59:44 PM , Rating: 3
this will give adobe another filter to sell to photoshop users !


RE: I know of one use
By spluurfg on 7/30/2008 8:33:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it works on cell phones, I'm sure it will work on cameras. It could save them thousands of dollars per season in equipment expenses.


I think the process works by essentially sealing the components inside the device housing, rather than attempting to waterproof the housing itself. I don't think this would work for digital cameras, as there are many delicate parts including the camera sensor which probably couldn't be coated. Housings are probably still the way to go -- it'd probably be easier to make a better housing.


RE: I know of one use
By AlvinCool on 7/30/2008 8:46:27 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it would probably work just fine for digital cameras. During the manufacturing process you would coat the electronics and the parts that could corrode before assembly.


RE: I know of one use
By spluurfg on 7/30/2008 10:53:52 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't think this would work for digital cameras, as there are many delicate parts including the camera sensor which probably couldn't be coated.


quote:
During the manufacturing process you would coat the electronics and the parts that could corrode before assembly.


Again, I don't think you can coat the sensor.

I suppose in theory you could coat everything except the sensor, but you would need to waterproof it somehow, and the current filters normally covering the sensor are extremely thin and delicate. Having a more substantial (i.e. thicker) transparent material directly covering the sensor may work, but it may refract light and thus require a fundamental re-working of the lens design.

Of course we could always coat everything except for the housing surrounding the lens and sensor chamber, but then we're just going back to waterproof housings. I think the point of the technology is an inexpensive process to make electronics water resistant without necessitating a sealed housing.


RE: I know of one use
By AlvinCool on 7/30/2008 11:13:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course we could always coat everything except for the housing surrounding the lens and sensor chamber, but then we're just going back to waterproof housings. I think the point of the technology is an inexpensive process to make electronics water resistant without necessitating a sealed housing.


Without knowing the process I would suggest that the lens of the camera and the part of the sensor that would need to be clear would be covered during the process much as you mask items during painting. The lens and the sensor itself wouldn't be the failure point. The failure point would be corrosion where the sensor attaches to the pcb, on the pcb and electronics itself as far as the electronics go. Then on the assembly it would corrode the actual focusing mechanics of the lens assembly, which is what I'm talking about coating. So as far as coating the lens surface and the surface of the sensors, you wouldn't want to nor would it be necessary. But those are not failure points regardless.


RE: I know of one use
By spluurfg on 7/30/2008 2:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
True, but again the sensor and in the case of an SLR the mirror are extremely fragile. I am not certain they'd survive much water at all. At any rate water on the sensor would make trying to take images or photos useless. However coating everything else might increase the water resistance and surviveability of the overall device, I was mainly disagreeing the notion that it could turn an ordinary camera into a functioning underwater camera.

quote:
Items protected with Golden Shellback Coatings are able to continue operating when submerged and can operate afterwards as well.


At any rate it's a moot point, as water entering the chamber between the lens and the sensor would disrupt the image, and if submerged the refraction may make focusing impossible. The lens and chamber containing the sensor would need to be sealed.


RE: I know of one use
By feraltoad on 7/31/2008 4:52:56 AM , Rating: 2