Experiment - Ski base porosity

[Swiss Toni]

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.

UHMWPE ski base material is manufactured by compression molding, UHMWPE powder is placed in a cylindrical mold and subjected to heat and pressure. The UHMWPE powder is first compacted without heat using 1000-1500 psi pressure, then the pressure is reduced to 500-750 psi, and the heat cycle (sintering) is started after which the pressure is increased again to 1000-1500 psi and the UHMWPE is cooled. After cooling the UHMWPE disks are reheated and skived into strip. It has to made in this way because UHMWPE has a very low melt flow index, it does not liquefy above its melting point and therefore cannot be processed by conventional means. The use of heat and pressure ensures that it does not contain any pores. Porous UHMWPE products are made for use as filters, battery separators etc., but they are sintered without pressure.

In DPS’s patent, “Lubricious Coatings for Skis and Snowboards and Related Methods of Use” https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2019040370&tab=PCTBIBLIO it only states that Phantom may penetrate into a porous surface of a ski or snowboard.

 

[SpikeDog]

First pass at USB microscopy of nesneros' ptex samples

Phantom wax with dye - looking at depth of penetration - it's superficial, but definitely gets down in the base. Still sorting out the instrument.....

IMG_0096

• SpikeDog
• Nov 21, 2019

IMG_0095

• SpikeDog
• Nov 21, 2019

IMG_0094

• SpikeDog
• Nov 21, 2019

 

[Jacques]

First pass at USB microscopy of nesneros' ptex samples

Phantom wax with dye - looking at depth of penetration - it's superficial, but definitely gets down in the base. Still sorting out the instrument.....

IMG_0096

• SpikeDog
• Nov 21, 2019

IMG_0095

• SpikeDog
• Nov 21, 2019

IMG_0094

• SpikeDog
• Nov 21, 2019

What are we looking at? A white base?
Now show us that with Dominator Graphite Renew on a white (clear) base.

 

[SpikeDog]

Try reading the entire thread, Jacques.

 

[Eleeski]

Sorry, @Jacques is right. The images are confusing. Baseline images of unwaxed with dye, conventionally waxed with dye, and Phantom with dye enhanced by some circles and arrows would give a relevant comparison.

Polyethylene is is quite inert and reasonably impenetrable (it's used to store one of the strongest acids, hydroflouric acid). I know my bases can pick up dirt and stains and wax does stick for a couple runs so some level of penetration happens. But a good cleaning or shallow grind removes all that. So the DPS Phantom claims of deep penetration are a little hard for this retired plastics engineer to buy - especially when the pictures show little penetration.

Good experiment @nesneros . Interesting results.

We take too much on the word of popular figures without enough data to back it up. A double blind study of both penetration extent and friction reduction is needed in comparison to unwaxed and waxed material.

Is the whole waxing thing a trivial effect? Double blind study!

Eric

 

[Jacques]

Try reading the entire thread, Jacques.

I have from the start, but can't remember everything.
I will assume the first guy sent some of his experimental parts to a guy with a microscope, then he took the microscope photos with the base material on edge.

 

[Wilhelmson]

Either way the proof is in the pudding. If phantom chemically bonds as is claimed then perhaps the experiment would be to prove that it doesn't alter the chemistry throughout the base. Seems to me that the only way to achieve long lasting glide would be to alter the base so that as it wears down it still performs as claimed.

 

[newfydog]

Somewhere I saw research done by Swix where they used a medical microtome to shave very thin layers of the base and then used some analytic chemical process to measure the amount of wax which had penetrated to the various depths. I admire your efforts but I think a real lab is needed to make any good conclusions.

 

[Jacques]

Looking at the patent stuff, there are so many chemical names it made my head spin! Fluoronited (sp) compound was mentioned a jillion times.

 

[SpikeDog]

Sorry, @Jacques is right. The images are confusing. Baseline images of unwaxed with dye, conventionally waxed with dye, and Phantom with dye enhanced by some circles and arrows would give a relevant comparison.

Polyethylene is is quite inert and reasonably impenetrable (it's used to store one of the strongest acids, hydroflouric acid). I know my bases can pick up dirt and stains and wax does stick for a couple runs so some level of penetration happens. But a good cleaning or shallow grind removes all that. So the DPS Phantom claims of deep penetration are a little hard for this retired plastics engineer to buy - especially when the pictures show little penetration.

Good experiment @nesneros . Interesting results.

We take too much on the word of popular figures without enough data to back it up. A double blind study of both penetration extent and friction reduction is needed in comparison to unwaxed and waxed material.

Is the whole waxing thing a trivial effect? Double blind study!

Eric

By no means was I done with my study. I put some initial pictures on the thread. I'm immediately assigned homework by Jacques and given a lecture by Eleeski. I'm doing this work pro bono. Yes, I run a real lab, Newfydog. No good deed goes unpunished. That's about all I can say that's printable.

 

[SpikeDog]

Either way the proof is in the pudding. If phantom chemically bonds as is claimed then perhaps the experiment would be to prove that it doesn't alter the chemistry throughout the base. Seems to me that the only way to achieve long lasting glide would be to alter the base so that as it wears down it still performs as claimed.

I was planning on running FT-IR spectroscopy on treated and untreated samples.

 

[dovski]

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:

I have had first hand experience that would indicate otherwise. My skis treated with Phantom got a bad tune while on vacation. When I got home we had to take off a lot of material to get the base flat again. In doing so all the Phantom properties were lost. So not scientific, but my take is that the more you tune your skis the less effective Phantom will be,

 

[Jacques]

By no means was I done with my study. I put some initial pictures on the thread. I'm immediately assigned homework by Jacques and given a lecture by Eleeski. I'm doing this work pro bono. Yes, I run a real lab, Newfydog. No good deed goes unpunished. That's about all I can say that's printable.

I think it's way cool stuff! Thanks for the work from you guys.

BTW, I mentioned the Graphite Renew because it seems one might see the black graphite particles penetrate the clear or white base material. Dominator says just heat and cool it three times and BOOM! Although I think they mean wax cool scrape brush three times. I think just heat and cool same layer three times, and BOOM!

 

[Eleeski]

@SpikeDog Apologies if you think the lecture was aimed at you - it was aimed at the unproven claims. I did not understand the images you posted - and still don't. But your images do not appear to show the deep/complete penetration claimed. Your input IS appreciated.

Eric

 

[eok]

So, a few years ago, I did a few posts on 'Epic about a new super-hydrophobic material. The material was manufactured in sheet form (various thicknesses) or could be applied like a thick "paint". It was being sold and used to prevent ice build-up on various things - even tested on aircraft - and to reduce drag on tanker ship hulls. I don't have the time to re-google the particular stuff. I believe hydrophobic materials have received a lot of R&D attention in recent years. Which brings me to the same question I posed years back on 'Epic:

Why haven't any of the ski manufacturers adopted hydrophobic ski base material(s) yet? A wide range of super-hydrophobic materials have been in production for years now. The stuff I read about years ago was durable enough for tanker ship hulls. I mean, seriously, ski manufacturers are clearly not afraid to use exotic (gimmicky?) materials in the ski core layup, sidewalls & topsheet. So I remain mystified nobody is yet making skis with bases that are 100% super-hydrophobic material [which wouldn't lose effectiveness after too many ski base grinds].

 

[Wilhelmson]

I was planning on running FT-IR spectroscopy on treated and untreated samples.

Either that or ski the crap out of them.

 

[SpikeDog]

Either that or ski the crap out of them.

Rather tough to ski on a 1 inch square plastic sample. Whatever....

 

[Wilhelmson]

Rather tough to ski on a 1 inch square plastic sample. Whatever....

Point is that if your specrometer is in the shop you can perform the same test by actually putting the treatment on some skis and testing it the way it was meant to be used.

 

[Sibhusky]

It was meant to be used over years. He's trying to find it in a few hours how deep it penetrates.