PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments • Hacker News Board

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#291

Post by _visgean » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 12:56 AM UTC

kragen wrote: post #231

CameronNemo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA mentions Gore is putting a lot of money into R&D for PFA alternatives. They may fail, not sure if that is what you meant. But they will certainly try.

no other class of materials is anywhere close to perfluorocarbons in many properties, such as low affinity for both water and hydrocarbons (and consequently fats), and ultraviolet resistance coupled with softness additionally such levels of resistance to biodegradation are rarely found in combination with either of the previous two qualities no other known organic compounds, out of the currently 182 million assigned…

ok as a single layer this is the best we can do, but maybe we can combine different materials - different layers of fabris to make it work on a similar level?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#292

Post by qwerty456127 » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 12:57 AM UTC

wyre wrote: post #13

For anyone not familiar with what makes Shakedry so revolutionary is its ability to be waterproof, highly breathable, and incredibly lightweight. Its weight and breathability make it incredible for active sports like cycling or running. These jackets weigh around 100-150g depending on features and size and can pack into the pocket of a cycling Jersey, all while being waterproof and preventing the athlete from overhea…

So does this mean there will be no waterproof+breathable, also reasonably lightweight sportswear from now and until something new is invented?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#293

Post by SAI_Peregrinus » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 1:03 AM UTC

kccqzy wrote: post #187

numpad0 wrote: post #140

> "Introducing New Gore-Tex Products with Innovative Expanded Polyethylene (ePE) Membrane for AW22" didn't exactly catch my eye. I sent an email out to Gorewear and asked about it, but there was nothing to test and it fell off my radar. > As it turns out, that press release was a big deal. Expanded polyethylene is the future of the Gore product line. That sounds reasonable, and by the way, today I learned we were so…

Why is this demonization of Teflon aka PTFE? I mean yes PFOA and PFOS are pretty bad, but PTFE should be pretty safe if you don't overheat it. I mean I just purchased a non-stick cooking pan and it contained PTFE coating; should I be worried now?

If you have pet birds (or plan to get any), the vapors it releases will kill them horribly (slow death due to seizures). Humans don't absorb as much and have a lot more mass, so it's not acutely harmful unless overheated (used for searing or other high-heat processes). Even then it's not going to immediately kill you, just increase your risk of cancer significantly.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#294

Post by acdha » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 1:08 AM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #275

acdha wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I have a fair amount of older ultralight stuff and while it definitely did the job I certainly felt that there was a sharp knuckle in the price curve where the extra cost wasn’t worth it. Durability is a big factor now though since I’m primarily bike commuting where it’s about daily use & weight is less important.

>>> Durability is a big factor now though since I’m primarily bike commuting where it’s about daily use & weight is less important. Nothing's more annoying than an expensive rain jacket or pants soaking through after a couple years of sporadic use. The crotch and knees of rain pants always wear out from the inside. Sunlight probably damages materials from the outside. More and more I've learned to live without that g…

Yeap – and the price differential usually means you can buy like 5 pairs of Costco/L.L. Bean-grade stuff which takes the sting out of losing or damaging something, or simply leaving spares at work in case you forget to check the weather.

Also, honesty compels me to note that if I wanted to shave weight off of my riding load out it’s a lot cheaper to start at the waistline.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#295

Post by jjtheblunt » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 1:11 AM UTC

senderista wrote: post #230

Not sure if use of recycled materials is responsible, but I bought a new Patagonia R1 fleece pullover a few years ago and it was utter garbage compared to its 20-year old predecessor (technically, same model). Probably the worst-fitting item of clothing I own, and the fabric is incredibly uncomfortable. Meanwhile, chest zipper on the original has gone out, but it fits as well and is just as comfy as the day I bought…

omg i just noticed the exact same thing regarding Patagonia : their same models R1 and similar in current fabrics are plainly annoying, compared even to 10 years ago.

Sadly i gave some away that were of the good vintage when i moved to a hot climate. i wish i'd kept them. (and i'm sick of the hot climate...miss snow)

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#296

Post by steve_adams_86 » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 1:14 AM UTC

kccqzy wrote: post #187

numpad0 wrote: post #140

> "Introducing New Gore-Tex Products with Innovative Expanded Polyethylene (ePE) Membrane for AW22" didn't exactly catch my eye. I sent an email out to Gorewear and asked about it, but there was nothing to test and it fell off my radar. > As it turns out, that press release was a big deal. Expanded polyethylene is the future of the Gore product line. That sounds reasonable, and by the way, today I learned we were so…

Why is this demonization of Teflon aka PTFE? I mean yes PFOA and PFOS are pretty bad, but PTFE should be pretty safe if you don't overheat it. I mean I just purchased a non-stick cooking pan and it contained PTFE coating; should I be worried now?

I’m not telling you to cook differently or but a specific pan, but I don’t get it. I’ve had the same metal pans for about 15 years and they work as well as ever. Just about nothing sticks to them. I don’t need to worry about what might seep out of them into my air or dinner, they were extremely economical, I think they look nice, etc.

Why is there even a market for potentially harmful cookware? Was it driven by marketing or am I mistaken, and my pans aren’t any good?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#297

Post by blindriver » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 1:16 AM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #116

blindriver wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ditched them a while ago as well. I only use cast iron or stainless steel and it makes me wonder why I ever bothered with non-stick before.

> I only use cast iron or stainless steel and it makes me wonder why I ever bothered with non-stick before. Because they are incredibly useful when it comes to certain kinds of food, especially eggs and fish. I find all the "self-congratulatory" posts on the topic of non-stick pans, and demonization of people that use them, of the "thou doth protest too much" quality. Tons of renowned chefs, like Jacques Pepin, have…

I watched your video you linked to, and all that Jacques Pepin said was that it was easier to use a non-stick pan. But he didn't say it was essential at all. He just said it was easier, which I think we can all agree upon.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#298

Post by numpad0 » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 1:17 AM UTC

kccqzy wrote: post #187

numpad0 wrote: post #140

> "Introducing New Gore-Tex Products with Innovative Expanded Polyethylene (ePE) Membrane for AW22" didn't exactly catch my eye. I sent an email out to Gorewear and asked about it, but there was nothing to test and it fell off my radar. > As it turns out, that press release was a big deal. Expanded polyethylene is the future of the Gore product line. That sounds reasonable, and by the way, today I learned we were so…

Why is this demonization of Teflon aka PTFE? I mean yes PFOA and PFOS are pretty bad, but PTFE should be pretty safe if you don't overheat it. I mean I just purchased a non-stick cooking pan and it contained PTFE coating; should I be worried now?

It’s just overkill. I am not worrying too much about fluorine based plastics but I’d rather have it used sparingly for exotic use cases.

btw I’d recommend cast iron over non-stick for frying pans. Liberally used oils on heat treated pans work the same as nonstick coatings but require much less care. PTFE surfaces are more suitable for stew pans and rice cookers than pans.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#299

Post by snowwrestler » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 1:22 AM UTC

twic wrote: post #243

jkqwzsoo wrote: post #86

Thinking about it for a minute, I’m not sure why we need fluoropolymers for waterproof technical fabrics. Unless I’m very much mistaken, PDMS rubber, polypropylene, polyethylene, and other materials provide similar levels of water resistance, without requiring the use of fluorine-containing compounds. Most explanations I read for Gor-Tex-type materials using PTFE (e.g., [0]) reference the hydrophobicity of the materi…

PTFE also repels oil. That means that the holes in the face fabric and the pores in the membrane don't get clogged up with oil from the wearer's body. Do those other polymers have that property? I honestly have no idea how significant this is compared to the hydrophobicity though.

The PTFE in GoreTex is expanded (ePTFE) and while it chemically does not bind to oil, oil can mechanically clog the pores. For decades GoreTex has had a layer of polyurethane on top of the ePTFE to prevent this.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#300

Post by edrxty » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 1:23 AM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #67

I wish that we'd come up with a replacement that's just as good first , and only then phase out the original. As an example of the right way to do things, consider that nobody banned leaded avgas before the FAA found and approved a safe unleaded formulation.

The FAA had plenty of options to replace 100LL for decades but didn't have the balls to make any compromises at all. Most of the aircraft could have been trivially run on 93UL or even automotive 93 and the few that couldn't could have been trivially modified. It was politically untenable to subsidize any upgrades to the GA fleet and/or airport facilities, however, so they dicked around for an eternity and eventually someone came up with a more expensive cocktail of random other chemicals.