Omniphobic, huh?

'Slippery when icy' by ksr8s
under a CC license

That was meant in a scientific sense, of course!

'Omniphobicity' is the property that some surfaces possess to repel both polar and non-polar liquids. The former (polar liquids) typically refers to aqueous solutions and those surfaces that repel polar liquids are called 'hydrophobic'. The latter (non-polar liquids) typically refers to oils and those surfaces that repel non-polar liquids are called 'lipophobic'.

One would think that hydrophobic surfaces would tend to be lipophilic while hydrophilic surfaces would tend to be lipophobic. Well, often it is that way. But not always. The degree of hydrophobicity of a surface varies, depending on a number of factors, including composition and structure of the interfacial layers.

Interestingly, the behaviour of surfaces (or 'interfaces', to be more precise) regulates many processes in nature, including some we don't normally think about. For instance, the feathers of aquatic birds tend to be covered by a hydrophobic powder that waterproofs them, while in some cases the hydrophilicity of the feathers is controlled so as to allow some species to submerge into water.

Plant leafs tend to be hydrophobic, as they are covered by waxes. A classical example is the lotus leaf, seen in the video below:

Exploiting the properties of the different surfaces has found plenty of technological applications. TEFLON-coated pans is a humble but extremely common one. Applying coatings to surfaces can modify their behaviour, mostly regardless of the composition of the underlying material. For instance, the following video shows the behaviour of two types of wool cloth when wetted:

Hydrophobic behaviour feels a bit weird, doesn't it?

But, really, the options and possibilities are many. For instance, rendering surfaces hydrophobic, helps waterproofing and grants surfaces 'self-cleaning' abilities. Commercial products for that are in the market since several years and are extremely easy to apply (e.g., nanophos products - btw, I'm not affiliated to them).

Rendering surfaces to dislike both polar and non-polar liquids, however, has proven a bit challenging. You see, apart from achieving the desired surface behaviour, the resulting layer normally has to have some acceptable mechanical properties and reasonable endurance. Recently, a Harvard-submitted paper appeared in Nature describing the creation of 'Bioinspired self-repairing slippery surfaces with pressure-stable omniphobicity' [a more layman-friendly description can be found in the Discover magazine blog entry]. As the title suggests, the surface modification was inspired by the Pitcher plant. The authors suggest that having such a surface could be advantageous in handling liquids, medical applications, applications where anti-fouling and self-cleaning properties are needed (e.g., in the food industry).

That's certainly an interesting technology with a good potential of proving 'disruptive'. Of course, for food (and medical) applications, there are still a number of rigorous checks to make in order to ensure that the particular surface coating is toxicologically acceptable, remains stable in the range of temperature, pH, solvents and mechanical stresses used in food processing, cannot be attacked by bacteria (unlikely, since it is omniphobic) and that it doesn't break down or leak in any way to the food it is in contact with. And all that, at a reasonable cost... If it goes through, I bet we'll soon see some interesting product concepts on the market!

Food Designer: Where innovation becomes edible

A drop of inspiration
by Tammy Bogestrand
under BY-NC-ND

In most productive sectors product innovation is a major drive for the market. Take the automotive industry, for instance. Innovative designs, new technologies that affect safety, performance or cost are all evaluated by the consumers and contribute to making their choice.

As with any rule, exceptions exist. The tourism industry, for example. There, the consumer often wants to re-live an experience; at least, a considerable part of the market is related to experiencing tradition and cultural heritage.

The food industry lies somewhere in between. Policy makers tend to treat it as a traditional sector, although that trend is not too consistent.  And so do most of the consumers. "Food", as a word, doesn't automatically link to the words "novelty" or "innovation". That doesn't mean that there is no innovation in the sector. On the contrary. While technologies that can ensure safety and quality have been in place for many, many, many years (thermal processing, the use of salt or smoke for food preservation, food fermentation, are all really old breakthroughs), further progress is ongoing.

Much of that innovation in the food sector is under the hood, transparent to the consumer. Take high temperature - short time pasteurisation, for instance. While not too recent as a piece of innovation, it is commonly used on liquid products, such as milk or juices and together with aseptic packaging can give products with amazing shelf-life, without sacrificing any of the nutritional characteristics of the raw ingredients (well, the latter is not 100% accurate but the losses are minor). Depending on the local labelling legislation and its implementation, the consumer may be unaware of the pasteurisation technology employed.
It's only when a food product is marketed as innovative that the consumers will establish it as such and associate it with the brand. Energy drinks is a good example, where consumers are likely to be informed of the innovation involved and aware various differences across the products currently available. Products containing stanol or sterol esters (which can lower cholesterol levels) is another such example.

Unlike the other industries, the food industry hosts very diverse views when it comes to innovating. Few would object to employing innovation for the benefit of enhanced safety. However, even there barriers exist. For instance, food irradiation has never gained wide acceptance - at least not in Europe. Also, technologies that affect any sensory property, making the product to diverge from the established norm, are likely to be met with skepticism. That has been one of the hurdles for high pressure pasteurisation, which in some cases affects the colour of the treated foodstuffs. Innovation in the food sector also is a question of ethics, as well as subject to the specific food law.

Interestingly, however, a wave of industry professionals is working towards innovation that will be clearly visible to the consumer. The so called "functional foods" is one such example. "Minimally processed" food is another one, where the innovation is on the way of safe delivery rather than on the formulation. The whole food experience is studied by an emerging class of "food designers". The modern way of living, at least in the big, busy cities of the world, poses several challenges to the food producers and gives ground for further thinking. Effective and handy food packaging, which is nice to the environment, portions that are "right", variety in flavours and nutritional balance, the food experience at a catering venue, all these are examples of the challenges on the table.

Food designers certainly have a lot to deal with, not only from the scientific or technological point of view, but also from the social. Food has always been a social element and that isn't going to change much any time soon. Compromising innovation with the societal perception for food and food preparations is, for sure, challenging. A good side effect of that is that any innovation reaching - finally - the consumer is likely to be a more "mature" one, which is a good thing when it comes to playing with nutrition and food.

One thing is certain, though: food attracts attention. Or at least gastronomy does. The weekly TV programme, in Greece, hosts at least 6 gastronomy-related shows, which collectively manage to get a fair share of the viewing audience. Of course, unlike technological innovation, gastronomical innovation is more familiar to the consumer. It is a kind of creativity within the reach of every one of us. Messing with flavours, recipes and dishes can be part of the social game, too. Can food designers do something like that with the other aspects of food innovation? Is there a way for technological innovation to have social consensus (ethics included) early in the product development process?

Food innovation doesn't mean that we should forget about the traditional qualities of food, both raw and processed. That means that we, consumers, should learn about what we eat, both the good and the not-so-good side, and learn how to make informed choices. To that end, relying solely on the industry to provide such education to the extent needed, doesn't make sense. Legislation and formal education can help but, again, they are no panacea. When it comes to such knowledge, consumers should care to undertake such initiative.

Crave-Buy-Use-Discard: The life-cycle of consumer-grade technology

We must be living in an era of wonders. Product-wise, at least. In many parts of the world, technology has found its way to our everyday lives. From smart textiles to intelligent food packaging materials, to the fast, affordable multi-core processors, to the modern highly advanced army of mobile devices that increasingly fill up our pockets, bags and carrying-cases, there is no doubt that technology is having an impact onto the shape and capabilities of the products around us.

But does this also mean that people have a better grasp of the underlying technology behind such advancements? Are they in a position to get the most out of the modern technological wonders?

Don't get me wrong, I do not mean to criticise in a dismissive way. In fact, that is a sort of rhetorical question, since the answer - I believe - is simply "no, not necessarily". Of course, education has improved. The amount of knowledge pumped into the young individuals through the educational system has also increased. Plus, young people are incredibly good at getting familiarised with gadgets of all sorts. But at the same time the technological level required to produce many of the modern stuff around us has been going up at a higher pace thus making catching-up a challenging task.

It is no surprise that when things go wrong with modern devices, "fixing them" usually means either "open the box, replace a part, close the box" or - more often - "discard and replace". I admit that with the level of integration of the various components, doing otherwise might have been highly impractical.

What bugs me, however, is that we don't get the time to make the most out of the gadgets we buy. The actual depreciation rate is a tad too quick. Is it because of the poor usability of the devices we buy? Is it because of the market-disruptive advantages the newer devices bring? Is it because of consumers' poor understanding of the true capabilities of the things they already own? Are the price tags low enough to justify a non-conservative approach in out acquisition of technology-oriented goods? Is it simply a question of fashion?

Possibly the reason is a combination of things. If one looks at computer software, say at the office, then it is clear that the features/ capabilities offered today are much more than the average user will ever use. Interestingly for word processing software in particular, there haven't been that many features added since the old Wordperfect 5.0 (TM). If one focuses on hardware, things are even worse; CPU cores, in general, spend the majority of time idle, waiting for user input; GPUs also have managed to achieve insane processing power, that, unless somebody immerses himself/herself in the realms of gaming, goes unused. Games aside, all that power is mostly staying clear of the average consumer.


What needs to be done, IMHO, is to give technology more time to mature. I certainly don't expect manufacturers to go for that route any time soon. I do, however, believe that consumers would benefit a lot from adopting technology, with a proven relevance to their needs and a reasonable future ahead.

Would that kill innovation? Hardly. It would, however, affect the way that innovative technology looks like.

Take the small, pocket-sized, mobile 10 lumen projectors (the idea in 2008 and the user experience in 2009): The idea is cool; the niche markets are there; but - at least in my region - those products came to the market, stayed for a few weeks and then practically disappeared. Why? Was the market saturated? Were people indifferent to that new product class? I think that was because that new class appeared too early. People are still getting bulky and bright projectors for offices and the average living room is still lacking a projector; it is clear that the market is not mature.

With consumers demanding a longer cycle for the technology they use, the new products would have to focus on relevance, quality (including adherence to standards), usability and feature a serious product support scheme. Software developers (including firmware developers) would have more time to optimise code and performance and, thus, allow for a much better utilisation of present technology.

(Photo: "Sunflower life-cycle", by me)

Retro innovative technology (think Polaroid[tm])

When I was thinking to start this blog, a few weeks ago, I had in mind to avoid referring to real life products, companies or people. I thought - and still believe so - that, unless you refer to things really close to you or directly under your control, it is not too difficult to get the facts wrong. Since then, however, I have realised that it is such things that act as "inspiration" to talk about innovation. Thus, starting today, I'll be less strict, allowing myself to share, now and then, a few personal thoughts on "innovative" (or "anti-innovative") products/ companies/ practices/ people that have managed to attract my attention somehow.

(Note 1: This is neither a product review nor a sponsored entry; I am not affiliated to the manufacturing company or any other party involved in the marketing of the products below.)

(Note 2: every company name, product brand or product name mentioned below, is property of their respective owner)

On the point now: I recently got into my hands on of those photo-printers for home use. Yes, there are plenty of those. However, I'm referring to the Polaroid PoGo CZU. That is a very special product, which I'm not quite sure if it should be marketed exactly as a photo-printer. Yes, it prints photos from cameras and mobile phones (or other devices that can support PictBridge) through a USB or Bluetooth connection. BUT: You can't connected to a PC, the printouts are fairly small (2''x3'' or approximately 5.1x7.6cm), a bit bigger than most business cards and you can only use the ZINK paper packs from Polaroid.

Having said that, the PoGo printer if FUN to use. It is the only mobile photo printer I am aware of, with dimensions similar to a small external hard drive (weight: 220g), able to fit in your jacket's pocket, having a rechargeable battery that can print about 15 photos per charge. Not to mention that the only consumable it needs it's the paper (the paper compartment can fit 10 sheets) - no ink cartridges needed, as the dye crystals are embedded on the paper.Ah, and it looks sleek (I used the black version - there is also a pink available, which would not exactly fit my taste is colours)! Cost-wise, the printer sells at about EUR 50-55 and the cost per printed photo is about 29p. For a bit more than double the price you can find the faster and much more versatile - but bulkier, non mobile, non cordless - Canon Selphy 780 (cost per 10x15cm printout is approx. 31p), although you may be able to find other similar products at lower prices (especially if you look for discontinued models).

Well, you may say, it is a Polaroid after all, which had a major breakthrough a few decades ago with the instant photo cameras. In the modern era, where the average digital camera owner may shoot over a few hundreds of photos per year, most of which never make it onto paper, a product like the PoGo printer can bring fun to places where it 's difficult or inconvenient to share digital content. The photo paper used features also a shelf-adhesive side, so printouts can be used as stickers. Think of parties, think of decorating notepad covers or backpacks or boxes, etc. Think of holiday time, where printing a couple of shots on the spot could be a good laugh (yes, you can share the 10Mpixel quality original when you return but that's a different thing).

What I find "refreshingly innovative" in that product is that it managed to merge some modern technology with nostalgia.

Do I need to close this entry with advice? Well, the bottom line is sort of obvious: If you need a photo printer for quality printouts at a variety of sizes or on different paper qualities, having fast printing speeds and or if you normally have the digital photos stored in a computer, please look elsewhere: Most inject printers can achieve good photo quality print outs, most multi-machines support PictBridge, and an increasing number of photo-specific printers is hitting the market. If you think that getting small, easy to share, stick-able printouts on the spot from your digital camera or your mobile can be fun, even when you are on the move and away from normal digital conveniences, then go ahead and have a look...

(photos: "Polaroid One-Step", CC by SqueakyMarmot; "Polaroid PoGo being used at its finest", CC by Inhisgrace, respectively)