Hydroscopic coatings
- By thebowtie
- EOS Bodies
- 9 Replies
Oh, the problem of me being pedantic!
I should have double-checked before posting!
Of course you are correct!
Following up the rest of your post:
Keep it all out, I say!
Of course you are correct!
Rat said:Correct term - as used by the BBC in the above program, which I watched with interest, too - is hydrophobic ('tending to repel or fail to mix with water'). This is actually the exact opposite of 'hydrophilic' (lit. 'brother to water'). ...thebowtie said:What we want is 'Hydrophilic' - water-repelling.
Following up the rest of your post:
Not only is there the issue of surface damage to the coating creating the risk of electrical problems - there's also the risk of any captured water retained in voids in the equipment - whilst not immediately corrosive, it can cause deposition of dissolved solids (minerals), and suspended matter (dirt) that can further harm the camera.Rat said:The difficulty with that solution is electric currents. The smallest scratch in such a coating, e.g. on the contacts of a memory card or in a switch, which tend to be vulnerable to scratches anyway - and the conductivity of water would render your device useless. A phone without an sd-slot, without mechanical switches, with a soldered-in battery and with a properly sealed sim-card slot might be commercially waterproofed using hydrophobic coatings. For electromechanical devices such as dslr's, current solutions are regrettably as pricey and cumbersome as they are optimal, if you ask me.
Mind you, I'm talking about fully waterproofing a camera here. Obviously such a coating could go a long way in making a camera more water-repellant.
Keep it all out, I say!
Upvote
0