• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Experiment - Ski base porosity

nesneros

Needs another base grind
Skier
Joined
May 10, 2019
Posts
114
Location
Utah
I'm sure this thread will seem naive to some, but I've always wondered just how permeable our plastic ski bases are. I've read all about how it's manufactured as a powder that is compressed into sheets, and this leaves microscopic pores/spaces that can be filled with wax, dirt, whatever. While I can mentally picture this as sort of like a microscopic ball pit, particularly when it comes to products like DPS Phantom it leaves me wondering just how deeply liquids can penetrate into this material.

I decided to try a fairly simple experiment. I don't have a lab or proper tools that could perform microscopic measurements or detect unseen variables, but I wondered if it might be possible to simply stain some ski base material, look at the back of the material, take a cross section, and see how deeply it penetrated. Further, I had some DPS Phantom on hand and wondered if 1) The phantom could act as a carrier for dye that might indicate how deeply it penetrates (perhaps it would be better than dye alone), and/or 2) There may be some obvious change in the ski base material that would be apparent via a cross section of treated and untreated material.

Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I'm not attempting to conclude whether or not DPS Phantom works as claimed. This is a pretty unscientific test. My thinking going into this was that my little test might show straightforward evidence of penetration into the ski bases, but if it doesn't, that doesn't necessarily mean there's nothing there or no change has occurred. It could be that the dye molecules are larger or get filtered out as the Phantom penetrates, or something else that simply isn't visible to the naked eye.

I purchased some blue resin dye to tint the Phantom, a box of DPS Phantom, some 4001 and 7000 ski base material, and also a generic sheet of 'UHMW' (unsintered equivalent). The plan was to install Phantom on my skis and at the same time use a few drops of leftover Phantom to run my tests. I had one section that was dye-only, one section that was un-tinted Phantom, and another that was tinted Phantom.

fullsizeoutput_14eb.jpeg


Part A application - I applied dye, tinted Phantom, and un-tinted Phantom using the same small swirling method. One thing that was immediately obvious on the dye application was the capillary action of the plastic bases, it was clear that the dye was soaking in. Another thing that was immediately clear was that the generic UHMW polyethylene had no capillaries, the dye was just beading up. This sort of illustrates, I think, a mental block some of us have in thinking of plastic as being impermeable, but the ski base material confirms that this doesn't have to be the case. Manufacturing process makes all the difference. While there's some very slight evidence of residual staining after thoroughly trying to rub in the beads of dye into the UHMW, I pretty much decided to drop the UHMW material from proceeding in the test at this point, I didn't think there'd be anything more to learn here.

fullsizeoutput_14bc.jpeg


fullsizeoutput_14bd.jpeg


fullsizeoutput_14f9.jpeg


Part B application - after a long soak in the sun, it was time to clean the bases and apply part B. I think I left the phantom on a tad thick, but it seemed to dry and cure well. You'll notice that in my laziness I accidentally swapped the materials in the photo, for part A the 4001 was on the left, and in part B the 7000 is on the left. After a good scrubbing, we have what look to be some pretty solid stains on our bases. I don't have pre-cure photos after applying part B.

DVUkxy9rSxSF7iM6x9aCVg.jpg


fullsizeoutput_14c8.jpeg


Finished product - Still stained, of course. There's no obvious bleed completely through the base. I have to admit that a tiny part of me was hoping for some color, or "water stain", or something showing it soaked completely through.

fullsizeoutput_14fd.jpeg


fullsizeoutput_14d3.jpeg


Inspection - I cut a sample (with scissors) to look at how the Phantom might have changed the material within the base. I did not see any visual indication that any change had occurred or that any dye or Phantom was present beyond the immediate surface. I scratched the surface with a razor to see how deeply the dye penetrated. There was clearly penetration, as the plastic I scraped off was colored, but it didn't go much farther down than a 'deep scratch' (sorry, again I don't have fine measuring tools).

fullsizeoutput_14d6.jpeg

fullsizeoutput_14dd.jpeg


I cut a second cross section using a razor to try to get a clearer edge. Still no obvious change in the plastic under the immediate surface... bummer.

fullsizeoutput_14e1.jpeg


I also tried to clean off the areas thoroughly to see if I could remove the dye from the pores. I used 'Goo Gone', a citrus based cleaner. I did remove some superficial surface leftovers, but after five minutes of scrubbing I was unable to meaningfully remove the dyes to any degree, I think once the pores are filled in this material it's going to be tough to remove much of anything short of a base grind.

fullsizeoutput_14f5.jpeg


fullsizeoutput_14f7.jpeg


Final thoughts - While I'm a bit disappointed that I didn't encounter any sort of obvious indication that ski base material soaks up Phantom (or dye) like a sponge, I'm still glad I did this experiment, as it illustrated to me just how porous ski bases are, and how important it is to ensure those naked pores are filled with something other than dirt. As for Phantom, I'm a fan and will probably continue to use it, but for me the mystery remains about whether this is really a treatment that penetrates and lasts for the life of the bases, or if it's just a placebo.

I hope this post was informative, or at least amusing for some :)
 

pchewn

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
2,607
Location
Beaverton OR USA
Hat's off to you for conducting this experiment. Yes, informative and amusing.

I have some comments and speculation:

  1. The dye you added may not be compatible with the reactive chemicals in PHANTOM, nor with the solvents in PHANTOM
  2. That could prevent the PHANTOM from achieving its function (i.e. the dye may "poison" the chemistry)
  3. The size of the dye molecules could prevent them from permeating the base, whereas the PHANTOM solvents and reactive agents are specifically designed to permeate the base.
  4. Your experiment and description (and many others I have seen posted) assume there is a physical need for the substances to "flow" through the base in order to work. As I understand it, the substances in PHANTOM do not necessarily physically permeate the ski base, but chemically and molecularly permeate the ski base.
The spaces within molecules, for example, allow Hydrogen and Helium atoms to pass through some "solid" structures, where a larger molecule (e.g. Water or Wax) will not pass through. That's the difference between a physical permeation and a molecular permeation.

In other words: I admire your effort, but I'm doubtful that the method actually measures whether the active elements of PHANTOM are (or are not) permeating the entire base.
 
Thread Starter
TS
nesneros

nesneros

Needs another base grind
Skier
Joined
May 10, 2019
Posts
114
Location
Utah
Hat's off to you for conducting this experiment. Yes, informative and amusing.

I have some comments and speculation:

  1. The dye you added may not be compatible with the reactive chemicals in PHANTOM, nor with the solvents in PHANTOM
  2. That could prevent the PHANTOM from achieving its function (i.e. the dye may "poison" the chemistry)
  3. The size of the dye molecules could prevent them from permeating the base, whereas the PHANTOM solvents and reactive agents are specifically designed to permeate the base.
  4. Your experiment and description (and many others I have seen posted) assume there is a physical need for the substances to "flow" through the base in order to work. As I understand it, the substances in PHANTOM do not necessarily physically permeate the ski base, but chemically and molecularly permeate the ski base.
The spaces within molecules, for example, allow Hydrogen and Helium atoms to pass through some "solid" structures, where a larger molecule (e.g. Water or Wax) will not pass through. That's the difference between a physical permeation and a molecular permeation.

In other words: I admire your effort, but I'm doubtful that the method actually measures whether the active elements of PHANTOM are (or are not) permeating the entire base.

I totally agree. Aside from the dye, I was also looking for evidence that the plastic “cut” differently, or sheared differently, or changed color in any detectable way below the surface. Any indication whatsoever that the plastic had changed. The lack of evidence doesn’t really say that nothing happened, but I’m left with that niggling doubt in the back of my mind. It’s complicated by the fact that DPS has changed their install procedure, they now provide a scouring pad and they request the user scours, buffs their base smooth frequently and especially after base grinds. This kind of negates the “maintenance free” aspect and raises questions about whether it’s really the phantom or the condition of the bases.

Personally I just have a hard time trusting my own impressions via skiing, that are subject to all sorts of external factors and bias. I just wish DPS gave some sort of empirical testing, drag coefficients after a base grind, etc.

I will say though, Phantom aside, just seeing the way the dye sticks and penetrates Ptex was really helpful to me personally.
 

pchewn

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
2,607
Location
Beaverton OR USA
@nesneros : I'd like to suggest a change to your experiment.

For these bases:
  1. Virgin untreated base
  2. Virgin untreated base, then grind 1/2 way through
  3. Virgin base waxed (with some wax you know is good)
  4. Virgin base waxed, then cut 1/2 way through.
  5. Virgin base PHANTOM
  6. Virgin base PHANTOM, then cut 1/2 way through (grind 1/2 thickness)
Test the "contact angle" of a bead of water applied to the surface. The literature for the ski waxes and the glide treatments (the actual patents) claim that "great" surfaces will have a contact angle of 120 degrees or more. Contact angles of 150 degrees are "excellent".

water-bead-angle.jpg


See here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/contact-angle
 

trailtrimmer

Stuck in the Flatlands
Skier
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Posts
1,107
Location
Michigan
In other words: I admire your effort, but I'm doubtful that the method actually measures whether the active elements of PHANTOM are (or are not) permeating the entire base.

In short, you think it's possible the dye may not be penetrating as deep as the treatment?
 

pchewn

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
2,607
Location
Beaverton OR USA
In short, you think it's possible the dye may not be penetrating as deep as the treatment?

1) Almost a sure bet that the dye does not penetrate as deep as un-dyed PHANTOM.
2) Very likely that the dye does not penetrate as deep as dyed PHANTOM.

I think a much better way to objectively measure the effectiveness and the penetration of PHANTOM is to use the contact angle measurement of a drop of water. (See above)
 

Seldomski

All words are made up
Skier
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Posts
3,052
Location
'mericuh
@nesneros

You could also try the reverse of your experiment -- that is, see if phantom is filling pores and preventing the dye from staining. If the Phantom is blocking the dye from entering, you could then cut your sample and apply dye to the cross section. Then based on the coloration, judge how deep the chemical has filled. Do this with waxed, virgin, and phantom base material to see the relative penetration.

If you have lots of $$$, to really see what is going on, you are going to need a high quality microscope and a way to section and polish your samples of plastic. You are trying to see structures that are 10-50 microns in size. You would not actually need or want dye for this inspection.

I think DPS mentioned that after many grinds, the ski should have new phantom applied. So, I expect the penetration will be finite (i.e. not all the way through a typical ski base thickness). But possibly deep enough that most recreational skiers would have tossed the ski by then.
 

pchewn

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
2,607
Location
Beaverton OR USA
@nesneros


I think DPS mentioned that after many grinds, the ski should have new phantom applied. So, I expect the penetration will be finite (i.e. not all the way through a typical ski base thickness). But possibly deep enough that most recreational skiers would have tossed the ski by then.

No, DPS does not mention that PHANTOM needs to be re-applied after many grinds. Just the opposite, DPS claims that you can grind through the entire base and the final grind will still have PHANTOM.

From the "FAQ" on DPS site:

DPS said:
How does PHANTOM claim ‘permanence,’ with a single application for the life of a ski or snowboard, no matter how often or hard they are ridden?
Traditional wax is a topical application (i.e. it adheres to the base surface, but does not penetrate the base surface) and thereby wears off on every run you take. Some specialty waxes can last a half run and are just temporary topical accelerants. With PHANTOM, and in standing by its lab and on-snow assertion of permanence, in non-technical terms, we essentially miniaturized the “slippery stuff” into molecules small enough to absorb into the base. We then utilize UV light to create a reaction with the polyethylene base molecules and a permanent bond is formed throughout the entire thickness of the base. So technically, if you were to grind and grind through all the layers of your base, you’d still have the benefits of the PHANTOM treatment at each layer.
 

Seldomski

All words are made up
Skier
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Posts
3,052
Location
'mericuh
@pchewn - thanks for that, I did not know that was the claim.

So if this stuff is penetrating the entire base, you should notice some leaking out as a residue on the back side of the base material? That may be the easiest 'test.' Saturate the base material per the instructions. Check under the base material and see if some is on the backing material. Use a backing material that wicks the phantom very well. I've never played with the stuff, so I don't know what that would be.
 
Thread Starter
TS
nesneros

nesneros

Needs another base grind
Skier
Joined
May 10, 2019
Posts
114
Location
Utah
1) Almost a sure bet that the dye does not penetrate as deep as un-dyed PHANTOM.
2) Very likely that the dye does not penetrate as deep as dyed PHANTOM.

I think a much better way to objectively measure the effectiveness and the penetration of PHANTOM is to use the contact angle measurement of a drop of water. (See above)

I tried this, and I'm very skeptical that it works as an indicator of a good ski base. I'm absolutely certain that I don't have the tools to take variables out of the equation.

1) Droplet size needs to be absolutely consistent. As I varied the droplet size, the results converged on identical for all six samples.

2) Just roughing up the surface is more than enough to create a giant variance in the contact angle. Thus the need for very precise tools to remove any variance. Even then I might question that the results have any value - grinding each sample actually created a better bead, was the best repellent, presumably due to air pockets introduced in the tiny plastic grooves. Wax, on the other hand, was difficult to even get a small bead to stick, it kept wanting to adhere to the pipette because there was no friction or surface tension. When I did manage to get a bead on the wax, it wasn't all that acute of a contact angle, and was actually better after grinding.

I have a bunch of photos but I'm hesitant to share, because my confidence is so low. The only thing that was really reproducible with any bead size, on all tests, was that the pure, untreated Ptex had a very obvious wetting and very obtuse contact angle. To a lesser degree, ground Ptex samples created more acute angles than their unground counterparts.
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
nesneros

nesneros

Needs another base grind
Skier
Joined
May 10, 2019
Posts
114
Location
Utah
@pchewn - thanks for that, I did not know that was the claim.

So if this stuff is penetrating the entire base, you should notice some leaking out as a residue on the back side of the base material? That may be the easiest 'test.' Saturate the base material per the instructions. Check under the base material and see if some is on the backing material. Use a backing material that wicks the phantom very well. I've never played with the stuff, so I don't know what that would be.

That was one of the outlier situations I had thought about, hence observing the back of the base material. There is no backer. However, I would expect that if there were actual penetration enough to get a 'residue' on the back end, we'd also see the resin-formulated dye do the same. That said, we don't know what Phantom is, and it's really tough to assume either way whether the dye molecules are larger or smaller, and whether or not it makes any difference. Nothing is certain, the dye may even be better than the Phantom at penetrating.

Again though, I do find it interesting just to see the porosity of the Ptex on display. I do think it would be worthwhile to see how permeable a phantom coated piece is compared to a waxed piece.
 

Seldomski

All words are made up
Skier
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Posts
3,052
Location
'mericuh
Finished product - Still stained, of course. There's no obvious bleed completely through the base. I have to admit that a tiny part of me was hoping for some color, or "water stain", or something showing it soaked completely through.

I missed that part. I don't see how DPS can claim that this fully penetrates the base material and for @nesneros to find no bleed through on the opposite surface. Maybe this particular piece was too thick? From photos, the UHWMPE sample doesn't appear very thick...maybe 1/4" ?? If it works per the FAQ that @pchewn found, there should be a point where the material becomes fully saturated and it should have some wetting on the side opposite to the application. Not necessarily dripping through, but perhaps oily to the touch. Or enough to stick a piece of tissue paper to that opposite side.
 
Thread Starter
TS
nesneros

nesneros

Needs another base grind
Skier
Joined
May 10, 2019
Posts
114
Location
Utah
I missed that part. I don't see how DPS can claim that this fully penetrates the base material and for @nesneros to find no bleed through on the opposite surface. Maybe this particular piece was too thick? From photos, the UHWMPE sample doesn't appear very thick...maybe 1/4" ?? If it works per the FAQ that @pchewn found, there should be a point where the material becomes fully saturated and it should have some wetting on the side opposite to the application. Not necessarily dripping through, but perhaps oily to the touch. Or enough to stick a piece of tissue paper to that opposite side.

I’m trying not to make too many assumptions about what it actually does, or what “penetrate the base” means. If we think of it in terms of filling pores one would reason that we should see evidence of capillary action, but as pchewn mentions, it’s possible that UV light and Phantom simply affect the molecular structure of the Ptex somehow without obviously altering its appearance or needing to seep through the pores.

The base material I’m using is standard 1.4mm thickness, with a roughed up back suitable for adhering directly to a ski/snowboard core. It should already be a thickness representative of a standard ski base.
 

eok

Slopefossil
Skier
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Posts
856
Location
PNW
Another angle: if *any* material (applied after ski manufacture) fully "soaks" through to the other side of the base material, I'd worry about that compromising the adhesive bond of the base to the ski laminate(s). If that were the case then the casual use of aggressive ski cleaner fluids (including formulations with some amount of solvents like lacquer thinner) or super light organic oil-based base conditioners (like meadowfoam oil) could cause enough base delaminations each season that it would be a regular topic of discussion here...

I would love for DPS to give a detailed explanation of how their 2 step process molecularly transforms base material and exactly why multiple ski base grinds won't affect Phantom's performance.
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,323
Location
The Bull City
Might the temperature of the base material be a variable to permeability? Try application with base at 160f and try with base cooled down to 15f. Can you hot box Phantom?
 

pchewn

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
2,607
Location
Beaverton OR USA
I would love for DPS to give a detailed explanation of how their 2 step process molecularly transforms base material and exactly why multiple ski base grinds won't affect Phantom's performance.

Here is ONE explanation of how a ski treatment molecularly transforms the base material. I can't verify that this patent IS Phantom, but it sounds suspiciously similar in nature..... I can only follow part of the chemistry being claimed, but it appears to be several processes such as "opening" sites on the HDPE for receiving silicon-based components which then are polymerized. They make claims about the actual chemical structure of the HDPE being changed....

From Patent said:
A ski including a base layer made from permeable material, wherein the base layer is treated with a composition com prising at least one chemical component to confer hydro phobicity with a water contact angle of greater than 120° to the base layer and a carrier fluid for the chemical compo nent, the composition permeating the material of the base layer and modified the material to be hydrophobic through out its Volume.

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/93/10/1f/9edc05d7da1b59/US20170198167A1.pdf

And for some other interesting reading, here is an article about physical roughness treatment (structuring) and various waxes -- and the measure used is the contact angle of beads of water on the surface....

https://www.kuzmin.se/docs/apcst2005_presentation.pdf
 
Thread Starter
TS
nesneros

nesneros

Needs another base grind
Skier
Joined
May 10, 2019
Posts
114
Location
Utah
And for some other interesting reading, here is an article about physical roughness treatment (structuring) and various waxes -- and the measure used is the contact angle of beads of water on the surface....

https://www.kuzmin.se/docs/apcst2005_presentation.pdf

Yeah, someone needs to do that for Phantom. Those tolerances require special equipment, there’s no way I can set a droplet perfectly on a surface and read a 3 or 4° variance in contact angle by hand.

Edit - you know, I think I’ll go ahead and share my attempts at the contact angle. Just know that this is not really scientific, and I use the term “grind” very loosely, basically sanded and scraped base, polished with the Phantom-provided scouting pad. You can see a difference in the “wetting”, if I understand correct lyrics the more acute the angle the more hydrophobic, but given the grind results I’m not really sure it’s valid.
8E02AF33-4FE4-45BC-A40F-BA6F3B9E61FF.jpeg

C6BF6951-E7B0-4F49-9FAB-34E9736ED776.jpeg
42C46DC4-F656-4B7D-B7C6-E6166DC2388C.jpeg
A55C723A-1705-4171-8B5C-D2CAE9A6DA8D.jpeg
A110378B-CF5E-4CE7-8202-5E64C5575DB1.jpeg
714C4EC5-19E7-4B7A-8F52-84630CC06FC4.jpeg
 
Last edited:

SpikeDog

You want Big Air, kid?
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
823
Location
Wyoming
If you are interested, I could run some of your test pieces through my lab. I've got a USB microscope I can make pictures of some of the ptex slabs. They'd have to be fairly thin, but I think you're on the right track by using an x-acto to shave them off. Might work, might not.... PM me if you want to go that direction. I think I can get at least 60x. I have a fantastic Olympus microscope that will go much deeper, but it's an old one, and not set up for USB. I used polaroid film up until it was no longer available (~2010).
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top