Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Hydrophilic Powder Used To Save Library Books 55

Posted by timothy from the ultimate-kitty-litter dept.
VersatilePrimate writes "Wired News has a story about a polymer that can instantaniously suck 2000 times in its body weight of water. Super Slurper, a starch-based polymer with a powerful thirst, has been employed in diapers and filters, but researchers want to turn the page and develop a different application: drying waterlogged books."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hydrophilic Powder Used To Save Library Books More

Hydrophilic Powder Used To Save Library Books

Comments Filter:

  • The ultimate battle... (Score:5, Funny)

    by greenhide ( 597777 ) <jordanslashdot.cvilleweekly@com> on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @11:03AM (#7103531)
    This stuff vs. the Super Big Gulp [7-eleven.com]...

  • Do you believe this? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @11:04AM (#7103541) Homepage

    "... a mere teaspoon of the stuff can absorb a gallon of water"

    Somebody has been pulling a reporter's leg.

  • Consequently (Score:5, Funny)

    by kurosawdust ( 654754 ) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @11:10AM (#7103589)
    In a related story, the number of borrowable copies of Short Stories to Read While You Kayak jumped up 7,000%...

  • Acid, Heat, UV Eats Paper (Score:4, Informative)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @11:28AM (#7103736) Homepage Journal

    From what I understand, one of the big problems for libraries is that mass produced paper in the last 150 years or so is acidic and degrades the paper. I've looked at 100 year old newspapers in local libraries that were practically crumbling.

    Leave a newspaper out in the sun a couple of weeks and you'll get the idea of what happens in a shorter time frame.

    I've heard of efforts to treat books with a base to help balance the pH and halt degradation, but I think it's somewhat expensive.

    Sometimes I've thought that some of my old comic books might better be treated with a base or else stored in a freezer. Meanwhile, they're yellowing with age.

  • Slurp? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @11:30AM (#7103758)

    Super Slurper ... has been employed in diapers ...

    I don't know whether to be horrified or aroused at the prospect of Super Slurper in my underpants.

  • Something about this sets off my bogometer. Perhaps it's the assertion that a teaspoon of the material can absorb a full gallon of water. Even if it could expand enough such that its volume approximated a gallon, the resulting substance would be only slightly less viscous than the water itself ... it just isn't possible to get enough structure from so little mass. In other words, if a teaspoon of the stuff absorbed a gallon of water, it would damage books just like a gallon of water would. We don't gene
    • " would be only slightly less viscous than the water itself "

      Not quite correct, sir. If the stuff is crosslinked, the resulting solution will have a consistency of a gelly. It can be fragile and shaky, but not liquid.

      Which brings the question whether gelyfish-like material would be good thing to have in the books, since water evaporation from jelly is greatly reduced.
      • i guess they'll make some kind of nappie like things, that absorb the water, preventing the product itself to come into contact with the paper itself. Some kind of like the Gore-Tex sandwiches, already in use, but filled with 'normal' absorbants today.

    • Re:Fact or fiction? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rxke ( 644923 )
      too viscous? just add another spoonful of the-cheap- stuff. Problem solved (no pun intended) BTW I sent the article to 4 paper restaurators, 2 already answered me in very enthousiastic ways... So it might be a killer-app in the making...

    • Re:Fact or fiction? (Score:4, Informative)

      by meridoc ( 134765 ) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @05:35PM (#7108161)

      Here's a link to a Sci. Am. [sciam.com] article on super-absorbing stuff. At the bottom is a picture of water molecules associating with the polymer chain.

      It'll help to remember that the water/polymer association is just that: an association. This isn't a 1:1 bonding situation, so the carboxyl groups can attract more than one water molecule.

  • Why don't we just infect the books with rabies-induced hydrophobia in the first place?
  • What about the pages in national geographic that are warped and stick together? Wil it be able to save those as well?
    • Not if those pages have bare-breasted native women on them.
    • nope, those glossy pages are a nightmare to restore into their original splendour; they're for a big percentage made of loose filler material, and optical whiteners, etc. all stuf that gets displaced when soaking wet... you could try to humidify them *slowly* and then carefully try to peel them, but chances are it'll not work. Afterwards, dry each page separately, between blotting paper, under weight ,remove blotting paper after 10 minutes, replace with dry, then same thing after 30 min, 1 hour, 2,4; a day
  • For historical books I understand this stuff completely, but I'm still trying to figure out why we don't print new books on plastic yet.

    It's not like it's not possible - there's a book of water-related erotica (called Aqua erotica [amazon.com], I think) that's completely waterproof and not in a kid's floating bath-book sense. It's printed completely on plastic and it's not all that much more expensive than a normal trade paper novel. The pages almost feel like paper, too.

    Just something to thing about.

    Triv

    • Wouldn't this result in the inability to recycle the material? If I remember correctly, even most color-printed magazines (the ones that have a glossy coat feel to the paper) are difficult to recycle.

      I believe the reason newsprint is of relatively low quality is so that it can be recycled easier. "Plastic paper" (oxymoron?) would be near impossible to recycle, if it is intended to be permanent and not degrade over time.

      On the other hand, so-called paper plastic might be used as an archival-quality print
      • "Wouldn't this result in the inability to recycle the material?"

        They're trying to keep books not recycle them. Lots of people keep books. So far I've seen newspapers and some magazines regularly sent for recycling but haven't seen people chuck books in. Perhaps it's for the same reasons why book-burning seems a bigger deal than newspaper burning to many people.

        In any case if it's plastic which you can no longer recycle (you can recycle some) you just incinerate them in a power generating incinerator.

        Afte
        • So, I own that water proof book that you skeak of. Also another, "Cradle to Cradle," which describes an attempt to develop a better reycling ... well, cycle. Bill McDonough (architect) and Michael Braungart (chemist) have some really sound ideas about saving the planet while still producing stuff. The paper replacement is a plasic and natural resin combo - prototyped in the Melcher Media "Durabook"s. The need next is for an ink that can be boiled off, and reclaimed leaving a blank page and a batch of ink.
  • suck 2000 times in its
    body weight
    So this polymer is a living organism then?

  • This stuff is great (Score:3, Informative)

    by K-Man ( 4117 ) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @09:24PM (#7109871)
    I got a 5-lb bag from watersorb.com [watersorb.com], and it has to be one of the most amusing substances I've seen in a while.

    A handful of the stuff will turn a gallon of water into gel almost instantly, and it has a shimmering, translucent appearance.

    Good for cleaning up toilet overflows, too.

  • I read that as hydrophallic. And my WTF and subsequent peals of laughter must've been heard for blocks. Then I read the rest and realised that it didn't work, so I re-read it.

    To the researcher(s) who discovered we don't read letter by letter but rather by whole words, sometimes that is obviously not a good thing.
  • ...is with a computer. duh.
    Why aren't all books digitized, yet?
    It must be done.
    NOW!

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close