Converting hydrophobic glass to hydrophylic while using a WFP


From what I can see brass wool is a very little bit softer than glass and steel wool. There are three sized pads. The finest is equal to 00 steel wool. It has a 50 micron average fiber width. 0000 steel wool has an average fiber width of 20 microns. It has been used along with WFPs to convert hydrophobic glass to hydrophylic. While cleaning! As I can see this is not a magic trick. But rather all that we are doing is removing all hydrophobic pollution from the glass. Because ALL glass is hydrophylic by nature. Not hydrophobic. Once it is completely cleaned of all pollution it becomes hydrophylic. My thoughts are that particles which have the right angular shape/cut and are at least 20 microns or smaller, would do a better job at cleaning the glass and returning it to its true hydrophylic nature much faster. Then if we could make a pad based on this technology we could put that on a WFP. Cuz the real magic will be revealed when we have developed a product that can quickly and most effectively convert hydrophobic glass to hydrophylic AS WE CLEAN. Also using nothing but pure water. No chems either. For a perfect clean and rinse.



Wikipedia:- “ The first self-cleaning glass was based on a thin film titania coating.[3] The film can be applied by spin coating of organo-titanate chelated precursor (for example titanium iso-tetrapropoxide chelated by acetylacetone), followed by heat treatment at elevated temperatures to burn the organic residues and to form the anatase phase. In that case, sodium might diffuse from the glass into the nascent titanium dioxide, causing a degradation in the hydrophilic/catalytic effect[4] unless preventive measures are taken. The glass cleans itself in two stages. The “photocatalytic” stage of the process breaks down the organic dirt on the glass using ultraviolet light and makes the glass superhydrophilic (normally glass is hydrophobic). During the following “superhydrophilic” stage, rain washes away the dirt, leaving almost no streaks, because water spreads evenly on superhydrophilic surfaces“


Sounds very interesting Steve. But I have to say I have never been a fan of this new technology. First I don’t believe it works very well most of the time. One reason is that the so called hydrophylic TiO2 should be subject to the effects of pollution and construction deposits just like glass. The true surface of which is hydrophylic. Not hydrophobic. Pollution and construction deposits like silicone leaking from the edges can make it hydrophobic. Same with TiO2 surfaces. The photocatalytic effects of TiO2 are not enough to break up such deposits. The glass must also get enough rain to rinse off the window.

How do you think bronze wool is able to remove all hydrophobic deposits revealing a brand new hydrophylic glass surface? Check out this interesting video.

Check out this experiment I did using my SKRUB. Another “conversion” but not really! How do you think this was done? NOT by coating the glass with titanium dioxide. No special chemicals here. So how do we do it? The true answer to this question will open the door to a new line of products for WFP work !!!

Also here is a wipe on chemical not applied in a factory. You can see some of the benefits of hydrophylic coatings. What if we were to “mix” technologies?



Henry I hope you find a way to get Cheetah on the market. I was amazed at how effective it was at removing aluminum welding smudges from painted wood and metal doors.


Hi Malcolm. That product is a silane based superwetter. I called it a supersoap. I think it is a nonionic which does leave a more noticeable film on glass. More noticeable than Dawn. The cost was rather high. I needed to invest about five hundred just to buy a five gallon pail. It cost around a hundred bux per gallon. Which is the average cost for these superwetters. When I was working with Unger and the Shark Tank verifies this;…a manufacturers total cost must be multiplied by 4 to 6.5 to get the end retail/consumer price. So a product that cost around ninety bux per gallon would be .70 cents per ounce. A 12 ounce bottle would therefore cost 8.44. Add a buck for the bottle and label and you end up at a manufacturing cost of 9.44. Multiply this by 4 and you have a retail price of 37.75 for 12 ounces. Would you pay that plus shipping? What about a five gallon pail. Would you pay four to five hundred for a five gallon pail? Here is another question. Do you think it could possibly compete at that cost with the other window cleaning soaps out there?



No, unfortunately I wouldn’t be able to justify that expense. Rats!! :persevere:


What if the cost were .70 cents per ounce? Then the cost for 12 ounces would be only 8.40. The product however is much much more concentrated than Dawn. As I write I am negotiating to bring these products out. The only catch is to get it at that price we would have to buy a five gallon pail. Maybe five companies could split a pail? I think if I bought a pail it would last me an entire year. And I would probably save money. Dawn would cost me more.



Wow. What a read, my head is spinning. :thinking: In the realm of science, Henry, can’t a “SuperSoap” be made with simple, naturally occurring elements? Remember the Aloe Vera craze? And LOC? Surely in this day and age there has to be a way to clean and “coat” windows that would have a more economical production cost. Meanwhile, I love Dawn and glycerin.