Natural Exposure Testing and Pride

Long time readers of this blog know that one mistake way too many researchers and product developers make is to run poorly-designed simulations of weathering conditions in order to (hopefully) obtained faster results. But in the same way that a computer can give you a wrong answer faster, so too can accelerated aging tests give erroneous results when poorly designed and carried out.

That's why this report about the tarps used by international aid workers is so refreshing. The developer of the tarp, kept trying and failing in his design until he came up with a winner. He didn't do any of his testing in a lab however, he did it all in the real world. He needed to know how well the tarps would stand up to wind so he tied some prototypes to poles and stuck them in the beach along the coast. UV exposure? He let the tarps sit out in the sun.

Why is this so difficult for so many researchers to understand? The exposure conditions aren't as consistent as what we can create in a lab, but they are the real world and the real world is where the ultimate truth about product durability lies. I suspect in this case that since the developer was not an engineer with prior experience on weathering that he did what was logical. And the non-budget busting aspects of his testing were no doubt appealing too!

While some may think that we get so wrapped up in our instrumentation and mathematical analysis that we forget what we are ultimately concerned about, I think the real reason for missing the simple approach is ego. Since you don't need to a four-year college degree to run these simple outdoor-exposure tests, people may not look so kindly at an engineer that suggests such an approach.

For instance, when I was back at Aspen Research, we had a client that was concerned about the internal temperatures of an electronics enclosure. We offered to them 2-D equations for heat transfer that were simple to use and could predict the temperature after countless changes, but no, they wanted a bunch of 3-D FEA color images that had been run on a large computer (said images were generated in part by the same equations we had offered up). The images were useless for predicting what would occur after additional changes were made, but the client (and in particular, the management team at that client) loved the pretty pictures.

That client is no longer in business. Surprised?

Previous Years

February 25, 2013 - 3-D Printing Medical Implants

February 25, 2011 - Highly Accelerated Aging

February 25, 2010 - Cel Conservation

Oil Prices to Remain Low - For 10 Years?

While low oil prices are viewed by the majority of the public as good, the low prices are not without consequences (as is always the case with ANY economic news). Capital investments in the oil industry are down, so drillers, pipe manufacturers, steel suppliers of said pipe and so forth are seeing a similar downturn. At the other end of the...pipeline...(groan), plastic prices are down. This is generally great for manufacturers, but it is not so great for the recycling industry. With the difference in price between virgin and recycled resin disappearing, the incentives to use recycled resins are disappearing and so is the demand for recycled resins.

So a recent report that oil prices could stay low for another decade is something to take seriously. The source of the prognostication, Ian Taylor if the Vitol Group, is a respected opinionator:

"Vitol trade[s] in excess of five million barrels of crude and refined products a day, sufficient for the needs of France, Germany and Spain combined, and its views on the market [are] closely monitored."

The slowing of the Chinese economy and the shale fracking boom are to blame according to Taylor.

Surprisingly, nothing was said about Saudi output, which Saudi production, which as the linked chart shows, still remains steady. Opinions are numerous and varied as to why this remains so steady (The new Paris accord shouts one site! Fracking and Iran shouts another!) I don't have the time to assembly a list, but proposed reasons could outnumber the reasons offered for the Fall of the Roman Empire. Regardless, a quick decrease in their production could rapidly elevate prices.

As with any good (?) prediction, there are plenty of weasel words to allow for saving face. "Could", "should", "might" and "possibly" are all right up there, with dozens more waiting in the wings. So will oil prices stay low for another decade? I don't know. As Yogi Berra said (or was it Neils Bohr?), "It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future."

Feel free to add yours in the comments section below.

Previous Years

February 23, 2012 - An Edible Drink Bottle - No Thanks, I've Lost My Appetite)

February 23, 2010 - Spec Sheets

Gooey Sweet Rheology

Foods always make for fun and interesting rheology experiments. Witness the ongoing (and incorrect) characterization of ketchup as thixotropic [1]. Talking about viscoelastic and other complex rheological behaviors of polymeric materials really won't grab the attention of too many people, even those with a technical background. But mention the unusual flow properties of food and suddenly everyone perks up.

And so it is with a new research paper (open access with registration until 3/29/16) on the rheology of caramels and how it changes with the recipe.

It's a nice little piece of work, the most surprising result being that even though there are 6 ingredients [2] in the recipe, the rheology can be simplified using standard techniques that greatly reduce the number of variable that we need to be concerned with.

What I really didn't like about the work however, was the comparison of caramel to rubber, or specifically to what they call "Ferry 'type VII'" materials. Can I see a show of hands of how many people know what that means? Anyone? Anyone? Yep, only the SOR (Society of Rheology) members got it.

John Ferry wrote a book, Viscoelastic Properties of Polymers which is canonic. I can't imagine anyone being serious about rheology and not having read the book - it is that good. In it, Ferry shows some "ideal" rheological curves for 8 different types of non-Newtonian systems, ranging from dilute solutions of polymers all the way to highly crystalline systems. One such plot is this:

which shows the curves, designated by Roman numerals, which is where the 'type VII' came from.

But no one ever calls something a Ferry "type x" [3] material. It's not wrong, it's not incorrect, it's just improper and shows a newness to the field. And so to call a caramel as a rubber is also improper. It may have some elastic behavior that mimics rubber, but it is not a rubber. A rubber has an entirely different chemical structure that I won't go into today.

But worse yet is think of this characterization of caramel as a "rubber" falling into the wrong hands, such as those of The Food Babe. She already made name for herself by associating an ingredient in Subway's bread with also being used in yoga mats, so imagine what could happen in a case like this where the researchers already have made the connection to rubber.

When caramels are outlawed, only outlaws will have caramels. But at least we have a good understanding of how to prepare them.



[1] Well, maybe incorrect isn't the correct word, as ketchup is thixotropic, but that characteristic isn't what makes it so hard to get it out of the bottle. It's the yield stress that drives the us nuts.

[2] Or maybe you can call it 4 since 2 of them were held constant. Apparently the researchers are not familiar with Designed Experiments for formulations or similar types of analysis.

[3] Or should that be Ferry 'type X', since they are all Roman numerals?

Previous Years

February 18, 2013 - Viscoelasticity in the Bathroom

February 18, 2011 - How to (not) Become a Polymer Engineer

February 18, 2010 - A Concept Kitchen

"Those who can, publish; those who can't, blog"

Those words in the headlines were part of a published interview (open access) with Palentologist Jingmai O'Conner, and as you would expect, were met with quite a bit of negative reaction from bloggers (and twitter users). I'm not going to go into a full rebuttal - others have. Zen Faulkes gives a line-by-line set of counter arguments that are excellent.

I just going to make a quick couple of points that that I've not seen expressed elsewhere:

• I blog and don't published because I am employed in industry. I can't publish, not because my research isn't adequate, but because my employer won't let me.
• My publications are limited to patents.
• But my biggest beef is this: In the interview, Prof. O' Conner is very respectful of pre-publication reviews. Well, I am a very active reviewer for the Royal Society of Chemistry. So how come Prof. O'Conner respects my pre-publication reviews, but my post-publication reviews are without any merit? It's the same brain and fingers writing at the same keyboard in both cases. Why the respect in one case and the disrespect in the other?

Or did the idea that bloggers can also be reviewers never occur to her?

Previous Years

February 4, 2014 - Is the Word "Plastic" Destined for the Trash Heap?

You can't push back the tide

Despite all the flaws in the new World Economic Fund/Ellen MacArthur Foundation report about plastic packaging in the ocean, someone is buying it - literally. To the tune of �500,000:

Looks like they are going to beat me to the punch in developing that new super-polymer.

It's commonly said that lotteries are taxes on stupidity, but in this case, stupidity is a tax on the lottery. There are many, many more legitimate causes than this one that can do real good with this money. But having a good PR campaign and reinforcing peoples' perceptions rather than realities goes far. Trying to fight this nonsense about plastic is like trying to push back the ocean tide.

Previous Years

February 2, 2011 - Nitrogen Filling Tires

There's something Fishy about so much Plastic in the Oceans's future

A long time reader of the blog, Alan Blayney, first brought to my attention the "splashy polymeric headline of the day" (his words, not mine) about the report released by the World Economic Forum/Ellen MacArthur Foundation (WEF/EMF) regarding ocean plastic. It's been all over the news, usually under the headline of how by the year 2050, plastic in the ocean will outweigh the fish.

You can read a summary or the full report if you so desire, but I really would recommend against it. I found it very difficult to go any further than 2 sentences without grunting, slapping my head, rolling my eyes and otherwise expressing frustration. That this report took three years to put together is mindboggling. It really looks like a cut-and-paste job by a 7th grader. Seriously. While the vocabulary is well above a that of a 7th grader, the logic might even be below that level.

I cannot even begin to start with a detailed response, so let me give you a couple of high-level arguments which should be enough to support my previous comparison.

1) On page 14 of the full report, they have Figure 5:

Let's just focus on the oil barrels, showing that plastics consumption of oil growing from 6% to 20%.

My fist thought was Wow! Plastics are really going to explode like that? How come no one else is expecting such a boom? So then I looked into the details. The WEF/EMF relied on an IEA report for future oil production. The IEA report is actually fairly involved and looks at multiple scenarios for future oil production, including one called "New Policies Scenario", which is described as

"The New Policies Scenario � the central scenario in WEO-2015 � takes into account the policies and implementing measures affecting energy markets that had been adopted as of mid-2015 (as well as the energy-related components of climate pledges in the run-up to COP21, submitted by 1 October), together with relevant declared policy intentions, even though specific measures needed to put them into effect may not have been adopted."

There is also a "Current Policies Scenario" which is based on, you guessed it, current policies, rather than the wishful thinking of what politicians have promised. The New Policies Scenarios then assumes that less oil will be used for energy production, hence the relative increase in the percentage of oil used to make petroleum. No boom at all. It's all just slight of hand that may or may not happen.

But even if this does happen, the question remains: so what? Let's carry out the "New Policies Scenario" to an extreme and imagine that in 2050, all energy is petroleum-free (we're all driving Teslas and heating our homes with bio-methane, etc..), in which case plastics will consume about 50% of all the petroleum extracted (the other 50% going into non-polymeric chemicals as currently happens). Why is that a bad outcome? Or even if plastics consumes 100% of the oil produced, why is that bad?

The point of this figure is to create the illusion that plastics are growing like made and the reality is that they aren't.

A further argument against this illustration is that they are playing fast and loose with future policies and changes in consumer behavior. Because it helps their cause, the WEF/EMF assumed that changes will occur within oil production (the "New Policies Scenario"), but then rather than using a "New Policies Scenario" for the future of plastics, they use a "Current Policies Scenario" for plastics use. What wonderful logic. The mind reels.

2) The report is largely focused on plastic packaging, although there are plenty of examples where the distinction is not clear at all. But let's focus on the packaging aspect. On page 12 of the full report is Figure 3:

While you can argue with the 95% number, an even bigger counter argument can be made regarding this illustration. Consider again petroleum production. 100% of it ends up in a combustion reaction and would anyone consider this an economic loss? Or is this energy consumption a basis for having an thriving economy in the first place?

Like almost all generic complaints against plastic packaging, the arguments always focus on the "single-use" aspect of it. And why it is certainly true that most plastic packaging is not reused, by focusing on just the very last activity, the bigger picture is lost. Plastic packaging is required to meet a very large list of requirements for a number of customers, not just the final consumer. Consider the hated PET water bottle:

• It needs to seal the water in and all other contaminants out. That's pretty obvious, that's on the top of everyone's list, but for some people, they think the list stops there. It doesn't.
• It needs to be made from materials that will not leach unsafe levels of chemicals into the water, or react with the water. The FDA monitors this, but some people are still not happy with the results.
• It needs to not have any structural failure:
  • during shipment from the bottles' manufacturer (who is often someone different than the company filling the bottle) to the filling plant
  • while it is in the filling equipment
  • while the bottle is put into
    • the secondary packaging (often shrinkwrap)
    • into the tertiary packaging (a cardboard box)
    • additional packaging (such as to secure it to a pallet)
  • or during shipment via (multiple) trucks or boats
  • while on the shelf or rack, particularly when multiple layers of filled bottles are stacked on top of it
  • during the "normal" lifespan that the consumer has it
• It needs to withstand temperature extremes from below freezing temperatures to 140 ^oF or more, as well as UV light which can degrade polymers.
• The water needs to diffuse very slowly through the bottle's walls. Once too much water has evaporated, the bottle no longer holds the volume stated on the label, say 500 ml. Now it's mislabeled, and cannot be sold, so into the wastestream it goes.

Consider the consequences of just one bottle failing these requirements and leaking. At the very least, that water is lost. But depending on the location of the bottle within a shipment, additional bottles may be lost if the cardboard becomes wet and weakens, perhaps even and entire pallet full of water bottles. That is a true loss of economic value.

I could go on (and on. And on. And on.) but you get the point. If you want a good laugh, look at the "moon-shot" (yes, they used that word) technical innovations that they propose on Page 26. I can't wait to get started working on that new "super-polymer". Who's in with me? Maybe a Kickstarter project. We'd only need $50 million or so.

Lastly, I found the following comment in the report to be as filled with irony as any I've ever read:

"Society�s perception of plastics is deteriorating and perhaps threatening the plastics industry�s licence to operate. According to Plastics Europe, an industry organization, 'There is an increasingly negative perception of plastics in relation to health, environment and other issues'."

I wonder why?

Previous Years
January 28, 2014 - Dynamic Mechanical Analyzers - Male or Female?
January 28, 2011 - Miscellany
January 28, 2011 - Designing a Crematorium
January 28, 2010 - Holy Grail Projects
January 28, 2009 - Chemical Security
January 28, 2009 - So that's what it's called...

Another example of the lonliness of polymer chemistry

I recently discovered the Open Syllabus Project, a site that crawls the web looking for syllabuses and then looks at what texts are being used in the class. From this, they prepared ordered lists. While the Project openly admits that their methodology is not perfect [*], it can be considered somewhat representative of what texts are being used and to what degree. Can it accurately split the difference between #11 and #12 on the list? Probably not. But they should be able to clearly differentiate between #1 and #100.

You can filter the list by different fields. When the "Chemistry" filter is applied, the #1 text is "Chemistry: The Central Science" by Brown, et al. No surprise there - it's the text I use and I've always heard that it is extremely popular. There are 3 other General Chemistry texts in the top 10, as well as 4 Organic texts, 1 P-Chem text and 1 Analytical text, which is also not too far from what I would expect. Enrollment in upper level chemistry classes is always much smaller since all the premeds and other nonmajors have left, so P-Chem, Analytical and Inorganic would be expected to be lower.

Being a polymer chemist, I'm curious where the first polymer chemistry text is on the list. It's a disappointing #122 - Polymers: Chemistry and Physics of Modern Materials by J. M. G. Cowie. In fact, there are 9 biochem texts higher on the list than this. 9! Apparently polymer chemistry classes are quite rare, about as rare as the polymerization of a non-terminal olefin. Augsburg College, where I teach, doesn't have a polymer chemistry class (despite my efforts to create and teach one), and I suspect that that is true elsewhere given the data above.

This is all just another example of how lonely it is to be a polymer chemist. If you want to be rich and/or famous for writing a chemistry textbook, write one for General, Organic, Physical, Inorganic or Bio-chemistry. ANYTHING but polymer chemistry.


[*] Of that I'm sure. The syllabus for the class I teach is only available on the college's internal website - no webcrawlers allowed.

Previous Years

January 27, 2012 - Open Access, Curation and Seredipity

January 27, 2011 - Baroplastics