Chemically treated wood could send excess heat to space

Boiled in hydrogen peroxide and compressed, the wood can passively manage heat.

Read the whole story

 

[Wickwick]

"...three of the team members behind the new paper have a patent out to commercialize the tech."

I always thought the public-funded research should be patent-free, or at least the profits from the patent should return to the public.

Cool stuff though.

Sometimes you have to make concessions in order to attract the best people and be competitive with private industry.

At least we all agree that patents are good for incentivizing innovation. You have to let people profit if you want them to put in the work.

Right, because the grad students that actually did all the work rake in profit like nobody's business....

The grad. students doing all the work aren't generally the ones with the idea.

If you were just an employee at a company that patents your idea you wouldn't own it either.

 

[Mrweidler]

The end result is that, if the treated wood absorbs some of the heat of a structure, wood can radiate it away so that it leaves the planet entirely.

Great. So now instead of global warming, we'll have solar system warming.

/s

(This is really neat work. I assume they've filed for a patent.)

There is an a/c technology which uses the same principle of radiating in the unabsorbed infrared spectrum. It converts general heat to specific wavelengths, IIRC.

 

[Wickwick]

I always thought the public-funded research should be patent-free, or at least the profits from the patent should return to the public.
.

In the US a law passed in 1980 actually requires that universities patent and license discoveries that were federally funded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh–Dole_Act

Exactly as it should be. Your tax dollars at work. For the near exclusive benefit of the rich. /s

At least it's publicly disclosed. The alternative is it remains a trade secret and is still capitalized. You're never going to get decent researchers to work on a project if any valuable IP at the end cannot be monetized.

I would imagine that the U Maryland @ College Park, U Colorado @ Boulder, U California @ Merced tech transfer offices all have a hand in this to try and collect any profits that may come from licensing any related patents.

And for the record, these professors et al. only have an international patent application on file for this invention. (See here.) There is no granted patent on this yet - no substantive examination has even been started in any country yet.

For defense purposes, an application is just as good as an awarded patent. The date of protection begins the date you filed - not on award. So if we assume that a patent will be awarded, the pending application is just as powerful a tool as is the final award. If the award fails, then the researchers (and their institutions) got at least the benefit of the doubt from would-be competitors. I've been involved in several licensing discussions where some fraction (or all) of the licensing fees are held in escrow until the patent fate is determined.

 

[DepressedRobot]

I'm guessing that if removing the lignin and keeping the cellulose makes better biofuel, it also makes the product more flammable. Compression might help with that but I have to wonder whether the net result is less safe than wood.

Could more flammable be good?

"Honey, the house is on fire, call 911."
"Oh, never mind, the house is gone."

 

[Veritas super omens]

"...three of the team members behind the new paper have a patent out to commercialize the tech."

I always thought the public-funded research should be patent-free, or at least the profits from the patent should return to the public.

Cool stuff though.

Sometimes you have to make concessions in order to attract the best people and be competitive with private industry.

At least we all agree that patents are good for incentivizing innovation. You have to let people profit if you want them to put in the work.

Right, because the grad students that actually did all the work rake in profit like nobody's business....

The grad. students doing all the work aren't generally the ones with the idea.

If you were just an employee at a company that patents your idea you wouldn't own it either.

Yeah that seems fair.... if you own the company. I was pointing out that the people doing the actual work rarely see the benefit which is contra to the idea which was posited by the poster I was responding to.

 

[DepressedRobot]

I find building structures fascinating. Every building I go into with exposed framing, I can't help but think of the spans and forces and whatnot. I think this type of wood, whether or not this is the final form, could allow all kinds of changes to structures, from the structure itself so the insulation and HVAC systems required. Cool stuff.

 

[Wickwick]

"...three of the team members behind the new paper have a patent out to commercialize the tech."

I always thought the public-funded research should be patent-free, or at least the profits from the patent should return to the public.

Cool stuff though.

Sometimes you have to make concessions in order to attract the best people and be competitive with private industry.

At least we all agree that patents are good for incentivizing innovation. You have to let people profit if you want them to put in the work.

Right, because the grad students that actually did all the work rake in profit like nobody's business....

The grad. students doing all the work aren't generally the ones with the idea.

If you were just an employee at a company that patents your idea you wouldn't own it either.

Yeah that seems fair.... if you own the company. I was pointing out that the people doing the actual work rarely see the benefit which is contra to the idea which was posited by the poster I was responding to.

The point of patents (and copyrights for that matter) is not to equitably remunerate those that create something new. It's to not stifle the creation of new ideas or content. For all their faults, both the Copyright and Patent systems do appear to foster an environment where innovation is encouraged.

 

[Hapticz]

perhaps add a layer of nano mirrors to re-direct the specific energy into the direction desired. even a spray type of application then followed by a method of aligning the cured mirror component in the preffered angular direction. (rotation, air blast or even some type of electro attractive means)

with comfort and economy becoming a substantial element of shelter design, this product could find its way to those other 'planets' some seem to feel need added human occupation.....

 

[coslie]

The point of patents (and copyrights for that matter) is not to equitably remunerate those that create something new. It's to not stifle the creation of new ideas or content. For all their faults, both the Copyright and Patent systems do appear to foster an environment where innovation is encouraged.

Actually patents were intended to encourage the reporting, documenting and dissemination of new inventions as opposed to keeping the details secret.

No one at the time thought that not having patents would discourage innovation, or probably that innovation anything but inevitable. They were trying to discourage hording of knowledge and encourage the sharing of ideas. Which does promote innovation, but in the "standing on the shoulders of giants" way.

For better or worse, it's pretty clear that's not how things work now, as the system actually discourages reading other people's patents so as to avoid "willful infringement".

Copyrights are a totally different thing. And trademarks are completely different again.

 

[azazel1024]

But it gets better. The sugars in cellulose are effective emitters of infrared radiation, and they do so in two areas of the spectrum where none of our atmospheric gasses is able to reabsorb it. The end result is that, if the treated wood absorbs some of the heat of a structure, wood can radiate it away so that it leaves the planet entirely.

End global warming... with wood?

Remind me to tell my wife that at 7am on a Sunday morning.

"I am just trying to help global warming!"

 

[Lorribot]

The end result is that, if the treated wood absorbs some of the heat of a structure, wood can radiate it away so that it leaves the planet entirely.

Great. So now instead of global warming, we'll have solar system warming.

/s

(This is really neat work. I assume they've filed for a patent.)

If this is a good as they say, I really hope they haven't, patents aren't always the best solution except for lawyers....

 

[tigerhawkvok]

That cooling effect would only help if you don't paint or weather seal your wood. Or if it grows fungus because you didn't seal it. Here in Florida, untreated wood last about 6 months before it begins to decay into a sponge.

That's not necessarily true. It's cooling by emission in the IR; as long as the sealant or paint is transparent in those wavelengths it shouldn't have any effect.

 

[WilhelmC]

If they are removing the lignin and leaving the cellulose, could they not use other sources of cellulose, maybe something that grows faster than trees?

They’re relying on the existing structure of the wood. You don’t just need cellulose, you need cellulose that’s already organized into the shape you need. They can turn a wood sheet into a treated “cooling wood” sheet, but that’s it. You’ve got to grow something you can cut into sheets or planks before you treat it.

Shelby, is there any progress on synthesizing wood, or cellulose? I just ate an Impossible Burger, which was amazing, and it made me wonder why I never hear of lab grown wood or cellulose for paper. Lab grown meat or uncanny vegan hamburgers seem more difficult to me than lab grown cellulose and lignin.

Studies have looked at industrial synthesis of cellulose from glucose by Acetobacter species. These organisms are used to make vinegar from alcohol. They can produce a cellulosic pellicle to keep them afloat, where there is lots of oxygen to make acetic acid from vinegar. The cellulose is pure. However, producing it is expensive. Here is recent reference among many: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23897676

 

[Deleted member 1]

"...three of the team members behind the new paper have a patent out to commercialize the tech."

I always thought the public-funded research should be patent-free, or at least the profits from the patent should return to the public.

Cool stuff though.

Sometimes you have to make concessions in order to attract the best people and be competitive with private industry.

At least we all agree that patents are good for incentivizing innovation. You have to let people profit if you want them to put in the work.

Dr. Salk waves from the pages of history...

 

[Molehill]

Radiative cooling, non-metallic, light.... I wonder if it might be useful for making spacecraft?

Not unless it's also air-tight.

So you layer the wood with air tight paint. Or pitch, maybe. There's a steampunk space novel lurking in here somewhere....

 

[Mrweidler]

"...three of the team members behind the new paper have a patent out to commercialize the tech."

I always thought the public-funded research should be patent-free, or at least the profits from the patent should return to the public.

Cool stuff though.

Sometimes you have to make concessions in order to attract the best people and be competitive with private industry.

It depends on the grant. Universities generally own the patents produced with their resources. The faculty involved in creating the invention usually get first dibs at trying to commercialize it with a cut going to the university.

Some federal grants come with the stipulation that the results are public property and can be licensed from the gov't. There is even a federal tech transfer agency (or there used to be). You would not believe the stuff they have on file and available for license.

 

[reverend atman]

I’m sure this is not terribly relevant however this has me wondering if good old fashioned books are carbon neutral. Question spurred by the thought of having bookcases made out of that wood.

 

[Pluvia Arenae]

I always thought the public-funded research should be patent-free, or at least the profits from the patent should return to the public.
.

In the US a law passed in 1980 actually requires that universities patent and license discoveries that were federally funded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh–Dole_Act

That page seems to say, at multiple points in the text, that the Act allows organizations to patent their federally-funded inventions, but does not require them to. It mostly established a universal policy to replace the different agency-specific policies that existed before.

Or am I completely misreading that page?

 

[rmgoat]

How flammable is it?

Mind you, I’ve been told that heavy wooden beams for example tend to lag in a house fire, so it’s a relative concern.

Strangely enough, when we start thinking about energy reduction systematically, all sorts of ideas pop out of the woodwork and the sky doesn’t fall economically: assuming all the kinks can be worked out, even climate skeptics ought to enjoy their lower utility costs.

It's true about the wood beams, not sure about 'lambeams' laminated wood beams. One more thing, they outlast steel in a fire. A friend wanted to replace a wooden main beam in his basement with steel. The structural engineer decided it would not be practical as the additional insulation needed for the steel to get the same fire rating as the wood would be a problem. As I recall they eventually let him reinforce the beam with steel plates (insulated) so he could remove the teleposts he wanted to do originally.

 

[Haravikk]

Fire and wood don't really go together very well.

And...what?

First, wood is already used extensively in building, both structurally and for cladding. This doesn't bring a single new thing to the table in that regard. It's just a new form of what's already there.

Second, this is highly modified wood; the compression, in particular, excludes a good deal of air from the interior. If it gets further development, its fire resistance will certainly be measured - like all building materials - but it's unlikely to be any MORE flammable than ordinary wood, and will likely be less so.

Part of the problem is in all the talk of its use as a cladding material; that's fine on regular residential properties which have limited fire prevention because they're (fairly) easy to escape.

But big tower blocks are different, as they are essentially constructed as a concrete lattice such that one unit burning shouldn't spread uncontrollably to others. But if cladding is flammable this would bypass that safety measure, and quickly overwhelms all others.

In the UK we had the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017, where 70+ people were burned alive because cladding caused fire to bypass the fundamental fire safety of the building. While there were other failures too, wrapping a mostly fireproof building in flammable material was the primary issue.


If this material can be made significantly less flammable, then great, but fire is absolutely a valid concern if it's to be a miracle material.

Then it's not a problem. Because cladding use is determined in part by what's allowed by fire codes for different structures. If there's a problem in a given application, this material wouldn't be approved.

Then it won't be a good alternative then, will it?

If the material isn't also safe to use in the very applications that it's being proposed that it be used for, then it doesn't matter how good it is at reflecting or expelling heat.


I'm not sure why raising the issue of fire safety is apparently a radical and unpopular idea all of a sudden, or are the Ars commenters of the opinion that people being burned alive in death boxes is an acceptable cost for (some) progress?

Maybe the material won't be too flammable, or tightened regulations in where or how it's used will be enough, but that doesn't make it an invalid issue to discuss.

 

[SixDegrees]

Fire and wood don't really go together very well.

And...what?

First, wood is already used extensively in building, both structurally and for cladding. This doesn't bring a single new thing to the table in that regard. It's just a new form of what's already there.

Second, this is highly modified wood; the compression, in particular, excludes a good deal of air from the interior. If it gets further development, its fire resistance will certainly be measured - like all building materials - but it's unlikely to be any MORE flammable than ordinary wood, and will likely be less so.

Part of the problem is in all the talk of its use as a cladding material; that's fine on regular residential properties which have limited fire prevention because they're (fairly) easy to escape.

But big tower blocks are different, as they are essentially constructed as a concrete lattice such that one unit burning shouldn't spread uncontrollably to others. But if cladding is flammable this would bypass that safety measure, and quickly overwhelms all others.

In the UK we had the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017, where 70+ people were burned alive because cladding caused fire to bypass the fundamental fire safety of the building. While there were other failures too, wrapping a mostly fireproof building in flammable material was the primary issue.


If this material can be made significantly less flammable, then great, but fire is absolutely a valid concern if it's to be a miracle material.

Then it's not a problem. Because cladding use is determined in part by what's allowed by fire codes for different structures. If there's a problem in a given application, this material wouldn't be approved.

Then it won't be a good alternative then, will it?

We don't know. As already noted, we don't have any information on flammability at this point. Once we do, that information will be taken into account for proposed construction uses.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

Radiative cooling, non-metallic, light.... I wonder if it might be useful for making spacecraft?

Not unless it's also air-tight.

So you layer the wood with air tight paint. Or pitch, maybe. There's a steampunk space novel lurking in here somewhere....

Just laminate a paper-thin sheet onto the surface or outer "wall" of the spacecraft.

Perhaps this "wall-paper" can be printed in a nice floral pattern or something.

 

[ImBitman]

Yeah, pretty cool!

 

[bjf182]

Time to whittle me a laptop.

 

[numerobis]

Fire and wood don't really go together very well.

And...what?

First, wood is already used extensively in building, both structurally and for cladding. This doesn't bring a single new thing to the table in that regard. It's just a new form of what's already there.

Second, this is highly modified wood; the compression, in particular, excludes a good deal of air from the interior. If it gets further development, its fire resistance will certainly be measured - like all building materials - but it's unlikely to be any MORE flammable than ordinary wood, and will likely be less so.

Part of the problem is in all the talk of its use as a cladding material; that's fine on regular residential properties which have limited fire prevention because they're (fairly) easy to escape.

But big tower blocks are different, as they are essentially constructed as a concrete lattice such that one unit burning shouldn't spread uncontrollably to others. But if cladding is flammable this would bypass that safety measure, and quickly overwhelms all others.

In the UK we had the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017, where 70+ people were burned alive because cladding caused fire to bypass the fundamental fire safety of the building. While there were other failures too, wrapping a mostly fireproof building in flammable material was the primary issue.


If this material can be made significantly less flammable, then great, but fire is absolutely a valid concern if it's to be a miracle material.

Then it's not a problem. Because cladding use is determined in part by what's allowed by fire codes for different structures. If there's a problem in a given application, this material wouldn't be approved.

Then it won't be a good alternative then, will it?

If the material isn't also safe to use in the very applications that it's being proposed that it be used for, then it doesn't matter how good it is at reflecting or expelling heat.


I'm not sure why raising the issue of fire safety is apparently a radical and unpopular idea all of a sudden, or are the Ars commenters of the opinion that people being burned alive in death boxes is an acceptable cost for (some) progress?

Maybe the material won't be too flammable, or tightened regulations in where or how it's used will be enough, but that doesn't make it an invalid issue to discuss.

Large buildings have fire breaks that break down the interior into areas the size of houses. Flammable cladding connects across the fire breaks so its bad. In that setting, you’d need testing to see whether this material is a good idea.

But for a house, there’s no fire break. So there’s no issue with using cladding that could transmit fire across a break.

 

[Stuart Frasier]

Fire and wood don't really go together very well.

And...what?

First, wood is already used extensively in building, both structurally and for cladding. This doesn't bring a single new thing to the table in that regard. It's just a new form of what's already there.

Second, this is highly modified wood; the compression, in particular, excludes a good deal of air from the interior. If it gets further development, its fire resistance will certainly be measured - like all building materials - but it's unlikely to be any MORE flammable than ordinary wood, and will likely be less so.

Part of the problem is in all the talk of its use as a cladding material; that's fine on regular residential properties which have limited fire prevention because they're (fairly) easy to escape.

But big tower blocks are different, as they are essentially constructed as a concrete lattice such that one unit burning shouldn't spread uncontrollably to others. But if cladding is flammable this would bypass that safety measure, and quickly overwhelms all others.

In the UK we had the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017, where 70+ people were burned alive because cladding caused fire to bypass the fundamental fire safety of the building. While there were other failures too, wrapping a mostly fireproof building in flammable material was the primary issue.


If this material can be made significantly less flammable, then great, but fire is absolutely a valid concern if it's to be a miracle material.

Then it's not a problem. Because cladding use is determined in part by what's allowed by fire codes for different structures. If there's a problem in a given application, this material wouldn't be approved.

Then it won't be a good alternative then, will it?

We don't know. As already noted, we don't have any information on flammability at this point. Once we do, that information will be taken into account for proposed construction uses.

Here is a recent article that claims that a delignified and densified wood (by a different process) has better flammability performance than untreated wood. Who knows if that would apply to this specific process, but it seems plausible.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... .201807444

 

[Deleted member 1]

Time to whittle me a laptop.

 

[Oregano]

Natural wood cut from trees, without any chemical treatment, comes in a variety of densities. The denser woods are more difficult to catch on fire than the less dense woods. Therefore it seems likely that this densified wood product will have higher resistance to ignition than pine, for instance. Standards bodies subject building materials to controlled tests to evaluate flame spread rates and smoke generation. This new material will be tested before it becomes commercially significant.

 

[arifsaha]

Heavy timber is actually surprisingly fire-resistant. The key is rounding off the corners, but then it far surpasses steel (which is required by code to be insulated) when it comes to fire.

The interesting question is that having the lignin removed, will the cellulose-only material become easier to catch fire?

 

[numerobis]

Natural wood cut from trees, without any chemical treatment, comes in a variety of densities. The denser woods are more difficult to catch on fire than the less dense woods. Therefore it seems likely that this densified wood product will have higher resistance to ignition than pine, for instance. Standards bodies subject building materials to controlled tests to evaluate flame spread rates and smoke generation. This new material will be tested before it becomes commercially significant.

And wood cladding (or siding as we usually call it in North America) is totally standard on houses. The house I own is almost certainly spruce (I didn’t buy the siding, it came with the house), as are the neighbours’ houses. In more rotten climes you’ll go for cedar instead.

 

[Pluvia Arenae]

Heavy timber is actually surprisingly fire-resistant. The key is rounding off the corners, but then it far surpasses steel (which is required by code to be insulated) when it comes to fire.

The interesting question is that having the lignin removed, will the cellulose-only material become easier to catch fire?

Several other comments in this thread have pointed out that, even though it wasn't tested for this specific process, compressing and removing the lignin from wood generally makes it less flammable, not more.

 

[Stuart Frasier]

Somewhat off topic, but my architect (for a commercial project) recently showed me samples of acetylated wood. It uses a pickling process that takes ordinary softwood and turns it into a material that is similar to hardwood. The treated wood becomes harder, stronger, resistant to rot, and dimensionally stable. It looks great and is more sustainable than hardwood. It's apparently having some trouble finding its place in the market, but has a lot of potential.

https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/resou ... hnologies/

 

[llanitedave]

Reading through the supplemental material, they also induced hydrophobicity (water resistance) with a fluorosilane treatment by immersing it in a solution that is "2% 1H,1H,2H,2H-Perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane (98%, Sigma Aldrich)/ethanol. Unlike conventional coating methods, the solution penetrates the mesoporous wood structure [...] rendering the cooling wood super hydrophobic (water contact angle of 150°) even from the inside." After this process, they show negligible change in measured absorptivity/emissivity. So, looks promising for weather resistance, too.

Ah, so it can join plastics in the eternal, never-breaking-down, mid-ocean garbage patches?

 

[dodexahedron]

"Not really that dangerous" means you can gargle with it.

I wouldn't do that with 30%.

Yeah, it's a little concerning and rather telling that so many people have said similar things and been heavily upvoted, while those pointing out that's a BAD policy have been heavily downvoted.
Lot of armchair chemists here...

To those people:
Go get some 30%, pour it on just about anything organic you can find, and wait a few seconds.
Enjoy what happens.

Even the 1-4% stuff you'll find in brown bottles at your drug store reacts reacts readily with iron. That's what that fizzing is when you put it on a cut.

 

[rmgoat]

Natural wood cut from trees, without any chemical treatment, comes in a variety of densities. The denser woods are more difficult to catch on fire than the less dense woods. Therefore it seems likely that this densified wood product will have higher resistance to ignition than pine, for instance. Standards bodies subject building materials to controlled tests to evaluate flame spread rates and smoke generation. This new material will be tested before it becomes commercially significant.

Hopefully more stringent testing than was done in the UK on the cladding used on the Grenfell Tower.

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

 

[Oregano]

Reading through the supplemental material, they also induced hydrophobicity (water resistance) with a fluorosilane treatment by immersing it in a solution that is "2% 1H,1H,2H,2H-Perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane (98%, Sigma Aldrich)/ethanol. Unlike conventional coating methods, the solution penetrates the mesoporous wood structure [...] rendering the cooling wood super hydrophobic (water contact angle of 150°) even from the inside." After this process, they show negligible change in measured absorptivity/emissivity. So, looks promising for weather resistance, too.

Ah, so it can join plastics in the eternal, never-breaking-down, mid-ocean garbage patches?

No it can’t float in water because it’s too dense. Read the article.

 

[Shavano]

That cooling effect would only help if you don't paint or weather seal your wood. Or if it grows fungus because you didn't seal it. Here in Florida, untreated wood last about 6 months before it begins to decay into a sponge.

I wonder if you could coat it in a material that protects the wood, is transparent to visible light and the infrared bands this wood likes to emit.

 

[Stuart Frasier]

It gets even weirder. It's possible to take delignified wood and infiltrate the gaps with epoxy resin. This yields transparent wood.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 2B052C47BD

 

[GreyGoshawk]

Even living in a fairly warm climate, the strength seems more interesting and practically applicable than the admittedly neat cooling characteristic.

That's my thought... How does this compare to Sitka Spruce or Douglas Fir for the spar in a Wittman Tailwind...

Well, the original Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476
states a tensile strength 10-11 times that of the original wood.

With a stated density of only 1.33, I'd bet it would make most boats scoot right along with a shallower draft, ....or allow a far larger mast to support a far larger sail, and larger keel to balance the sails, ....all within the original displacement. Not too bad!

First thing I thought of was the de Havilland Mosquito of WWII, with its wooden construction. Imagine re-engineering it with 'wood' of those specs...

 

[Stuart Frasier]

Even living in a fairly warm climate, the strength seems more interesting and practically applicable than the admittedly neat cooling characteristic.

That's my thought... How does this compare to Sitka Spruce or Douglas Fir for the spar in a Wittman Tailwind...

Well, the original Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476
states a tensile strength 10-11 times that of the original wood.

With a stated density of only 1.33, I'd bet it would make most boats scoot right along with a shallower draft, ....or allow a far larger mast to support a far larger sail, and larger keel to balance the sails, ....all within the original displacement. Not too bad!

First thing I thought of was the de Havilland Mosquito of WWII, with its wooden construction. Imagine re-engineering it with 'wood' of those specs...

Or for the frame of a Morgan.