[HN Gopher] Gore-TEX, a lightweight, waterproof fabric made from...
___________________________________________________________________
Gore-TEX, a lightweight, waterproof fabric made from the expanded
form of PTFE
Author : susam
Score : 77 points
Date : 2022-11-25 18:19 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sciencehistory.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencehistory.org)
| exabrial wrote:
| I recently learned in order for a product to have the Gore-Tex
| label, not only do you have to license the process/formula from
| them, but you have to send engineering samples to them and they
| perform their own independent testing before allowing you to
| actually sell the product.
|
| There's no doubt part of the success is the chemistry of the
| product, but the required independent testing to very high
| standards also likely plays a large part in the quality of the
| final products.
| gorbypark wrote:
| Not only that, but Gore will honour their "guaranteed to keep
| you dry" warranty. I had a Gore-Tex jacket that the
| manufacturer refused to replace after it delaminated about 3
| years after I bought it. One call to Gore and I got the
| purchase price of the jacket in a prepaid credit card sent to
| me after sending them the jacket.
| [deleted]
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Wonderful fabric for mountain gear.
|
| Unfortunately, like Teflon cooking pans, its amazing properties
| come from a coating with perfluorinated octyl sulfonate, a known
| endocrine disruptor:
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7722801/
| adrr wrote:
| Teflon(brand) coated pans don't use PFOA or PFOS in their
| manufacture and PFOA is banned in the US for cookware.
| VygmraMGVl wrote:
| The title says this is expanded PTFE, which seems like it
| wouldn't need an additional PFOTS coating. I doubt it would
| shed similar small molecules to a PFOTS coating as it's a
| different material (polymerized tetrafluoroethylene).
|
| I also doubt you would get similar endocrine disruption with
| PTFE polymerization biproducts since you won't have the "polar
| head/fluorinated tail" structure that PFOTS has.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Setting aside the issues from waste during the manufacturing
| process and the messes that have been made (see 3M plants for
| example), is the actual Gore-tex product itself hazardous?
| Like, how much of the material do you have to eat, and how
| edible is the Gore-tex product? I get Teflon coatings
| scratching and getting mixed with the prepared food, but I
| typically don't go around gnawing on my clothing. Does Gore-tex
| leach anything that can absorbed by the skin while wearing it?
| benj111 wrote:
| Am I the only one that assumed this was some kind of LaTex thing,
| and got increasingly confused about the increasingly _hip_
| Silicon Valley lingo.
|
| "Yeah man, the latest AI NFT food delivery app plugin is totally
| _waterproof_ "
| jcampbell1 wrote:
| The interesting thing about Gore-TEX is that is no longer
| patented, and is merely a licensed trademark that brands pay for.
| The Gore company certifies the designs, and it goes well beyond
| stretched PTFE. They require a final level of breathability,
| waterproof seams, various construction techniques, etc.
|
| Bob Gore is known for being a savvy businessman, and this is one
| example of how to turn a 20 year patent into a 100 year revenue
| stream.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Is this why I'm not seeing a lot of rain gear with Gore-Tex
| anymore? It seemed like it was pretty common about 20 years
| back which would coincide with the patent still being in
| effect.
| hyperhopper wrote:
| The thing is, the brand means a lot here.
|
| I've tried probably a majority of the major alternatives. Every
| winter sports company will claim their version of goretex is
| just as good, but they all fall short, usually waterproofing,
| or sometimes they just suffer from the garbage bag effect.
|
| Either way, I've spent hundreds of dollars on too many copycats
| to ever bother with non-goretex again. It's not financially
| worth it
| jcampbell1 wrote:
| I agree with everything you said, and the Gore company is in
| the business of certifying the jacket will perform well.
|
| That being said, for fishing where you are going to get fish
| guts everywhere, lots of people are now wearing this super
| cheap Frogg Toggs brand rather than rubbers. There is a place
| for super cheap PTFE gear.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Don't know if it's the same, these days, but when I was more
| "outdoorsy," having the Gore-TEX(tm) label on something always at
| least doubled the price.
|
| We usually considered it to be worth it.
| le-mark wrote:
| Isn't it actually "water resistant" though? I spent a lot of
| nights cold and wet in gore-Tex gear. It would stay dry for a
| few hours but always soak through.
| ryeights wrote:
| It is, but after a certain point the face fabric becomes
| saturated with water and breathability drops to ~zero. At
| that point your body's own moisture can no longer escape
| through the jacket and you become wet from the inside.
| loeg wrote:
| That's true of the 3-layer designs (the inner layer is
| goretex but the outer protective layer can soak through
| eventually). There are newer products that are only two
| layers and goretex is the outer layer (under the "Shakedry"
| brand). Those don't have an outer fabric to saturate with
| water, so they stay breathable better.
| torstenvl wrote:
| It's waterproof if you maintain it. There's special detergent
| and whatnot.
|
| We use Gore-TEX jackets in the Marines, and in the field you
| can tell who washed their gear correctly and who didn't.
| jakub_g wrote:
| The term to google is "durable water repellent" (DWR). In
| sport shops you can buy sprays or washing liquids to treat
| the jackets.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durable_water_repellent
|
| Also note each jacket has a different thickness of the
| gore-tex layer which conditions how many hours of rain it
| can withstand.
| cobalt wrote:
| dwr != gore-tex wash. DWR is the cheaper/non-permanent
| waterproofing solution (likely containing PTFE) to add
| waterproofing to an otherwise non-waterproof jacket (or
| to make the outer layer waterproof)
| loeg wrote:
| Yeah. Nikwax is a big brand.
|
| You can also get "Shakedry" Gore-tex products, which
| don't have an outer layer needing DWR treatments at all.
| DenisM wrote:
| Wow, I had no idea the US military is that well equipped.
| Somehow I always thought the military have to tough it out
| while the civilians get all the fancy outdoor tech.
|
| You wouldn't happen to have the official Marines Goretex
| washing manual handy, would you?
| [deleted]
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I don't see much Gore-Tex(tm) stuff around anymore. I was
| shopping for some rain gear and I don't think it came up. Are
| there better materials now or is it just too expensive?
| PierceJoy wrote:
| It's ubiquitous in the mountain sports community. There are
| some alternatives these days, but gore is still the most
| popular by far.
| jakub_g wrote:
| In France at least, in sports outdoors shops, pretty much all
| high-end jackets and mountain shoes have gore-tex.
|
| Some Salomon ones might have their own custom ~equivalent
| tech though, probably easier and cheaper to make new products
| as they control the whole process, no need for licensing &
| testing by the Gore-Tex company.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I think the patent expired, so there are knock offs now.
| pyrophane wrote:
| Keep in mind that with Gore-TEX you still have to sacrifice a lot
| of breathe-ability. If you don't need something to be waterproof,
| you may be happier with a non-waterproof alternative. I've found
| that to be particularly true of shoes.
| williamscales wrote:
| The Gore-TEX membrane in the shoe also tends to break down
| quite quickly. Think on the order of months if worn daily.
| kabes wrote:
| I used to have lot of gore-tex clothes, but recently got some
| 'Dermizax' fabric stuff and these are a big improvement in my
| experience.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| It's a nice material, but recently nanospun fabrics like
| neoshell, ascentshell and futurelight have come out and I
| personally find they work much much better
| aeontech wrote:
| Any particular brands you recommend?
|
| Is this something worthwhile for everyday wear, or this is
| mainly for outdoor sports enthusiasts?
| watersb wrote:
| I purchased a North Face jacket at their factory store in
| Berkeley, mid-1990s, the Gore Tex "Mountain Light" and a
| fleece "Denali" inner jacket.
|
| It fit me really well, for a 30-year anniversary I decided to
| get a new one last week. They still make the same design.
|
| The new one uses their nano-spun FutureLight fabric, rather
| than a three-layer nylon(?)/GoreTex sandwich.
|
| It's much more soft, like a woven fabric rather than plastic
| hard shell, and it seems to be much less weight. I really
| like it.
|
| I got to try out Marmot's take on next-gen shell technology a
| couple of years ago. Half the weight of my 20th century
| jacket, very effective. The particular jacket I tried didn't
| fit me as well as the Mountain Light, but I suspect that most
| people would prefer Marmot's version: more simple,
| lightweight, everyday tech.
|
| Some things were great 30 years ago; the fleece Denali is
| essentially the same. The outer layer is _much_ improved.
|
| (And I noticed that the zippers are way better, overall. I
| bet there's been decades of improvement in plastics (sorry,
| "polycarbonate") engineering.)
| whateveracct wrote:
| I love my goretex converse high tops
| weinzierl wrote:
| It's pretty popular in Germany and the name and logo is often
| found on outdoor clothing. I always wondered if the name is the
| same in English speaking countries, or if it's different because
| of its negative connotations.
|
| Apparently it's just a not too uncommon family name (Al Gore
| comes to mind) and also used as brand name in English speaking
| countries. People get so upset about Toot and Coq and Gimp, but
| Gore seems totally OK. As a second language learner, no matter
| how long you learn, you will never know what's in a native
| speakers head.
| luqtas wrote:
| actually is really sweet to re-use unpleasant words and turn
| them into something like; gimp... come on, it is FOSS a epic!:D
| sswezey wrote:
| It's quite popular in the US as well, marketed as Gore-TEX.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| Popular, but also reputed to lean on manufacturers to use its
| waterproof fabrics and no others, or else:
|
| https://gearinstitute.com/ftc-investigates-gore-tex-
| business...
|
| https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/insane-membrane/
| copperx wrote:
| But is it pronounced GORE-teks or gore-TEK?
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| I'm unsure if you are making a joke about the typesetting
| system, but here is a straight answer: it is always
| pronounced like it rhymes with "cortex".
| soperj wrote:
| I think they're asking which syllable gets the emphasis.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| It's gore-tex as in textile.
| datavirtue wrote:
| The company has a very interesting organizational model. One
| I have seen in other employee owned companies where the
| supervisors and managers are chosen by the team (workers).
| [deleted]
| askvictor wrote:
| Very popular in Australia too; 10-20 years ago it was the
| only brand for serious outdoor enthusiasts, but now there's a
| lot of competition
| niccl wrote:
| For a while in Wellington NZ you'd see people walking around
| with Jackets saying 'Gore Techs' on the back. They were special
| effects people from Weta Workshops working on the Lord of the
| Rings films
| manojlds wrote:
| I usually see it as GTX
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _People get so upset about Toot and Coq and Gimp, but Gore
| seems totally OK._
|
| For me (a native American English speaker) the context matters.
| When used in a name or as part of a longer name (e.g. Gore-
| TEX), it's totally okay. Actual gore can be upsetting, but the
| word itself is commonly used in content warnings and guides.
|
| "Gimp" is different than "Coq" or "Cox" (a popular cable
| provider in the U.S.) in that it's considered offensive to the
| disabled (if the person saying it is not disabled), where
| homonyms for naughty bits are generally not taken super-
| seriously.
| Swizec wrote:
| > gimp is considered offensive to the disabled
|
| TIL! I always thought it was offensive because of its use in
| bdsm.
| zaps wrote:
| Can never not think of this whenever I hear "Gore-TEX"
|
| https://youtu.be/lt6KRKHpKhY
| pqdbr wrote:
| Came here looking exactly for this. Thanks.
| aynyc wrote:
| Just a side note, getting Gore-tex labeled product also means you
| get warranty from Gore-Tex, kinda like Patagonia label. My old
| ski jacket (Marmot) has de-laminated zipper that Marmot refused
| warranty on. I contacted Gore-Tex, they took the jacket in and
| send me a newer model of the same jacket.
| samwillis wrote:
| The article doesn't mention (other than a brief nod to the brand)
| the other massive use of PTFE, none sticks surfaces originally
| under the Teflon brand, most commonly found on cookware. It truly
| is a "magic" material.
|
| Teflon and other PTFE based none stick surfaces are now really
| quite controversial due to the toxic gasses they can give off of
| you heat them too high. And the manufacturing processes is
| potentially linked to a higher risk of cancer for workers.
|
| The industry is now moving away from PTFE to other materials for
| none stick surfaces, however although they proclaim these are
| "safe", they have been studied far less. I believe some evidence
| is indicative of them also having serious issues.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| Actually, Teflon on pans and cooking. Where is quite bad. It
| flakes off quite easily and you just ingest it. Go with
| ceramic, it's much better for you.
|
| This is just one search result, there are many This is just one
| search result, there are many:
| https://www.foxnews.com/health/non-stick-pans-could-release-...
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| Your links would probably be taken more seriously here if
| they weren't to foxnews.com.
|
| Personally I didn't even click on it just because of that,
| which is a shame because you made me interested up until
| then.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Teflon is harmless if ingested. The whole point of it is
| that it is chemically inert.
| IsTom wrote:
| Not saying that teflon is bad when ingested, but asbestos
| and glass are also chemically inert and it doesn't make
| them ok to ingest.
| pitaj wrote:
| Silicates like glass and asbestos are hard and cause
| physical damage, but PTFE is a soft polymer.
| fire wrote:
| Yeah, Adam Ragusea has a decent video[0] covering PFAS coating
| safety and production concerns; I hadn't realized how bad the
| factory side of things were prior to this - I only knew that
| overheating a teflon coated pan will destroy the coating,
| release toxic gas, and... kill any pet birds in your apartment
| :(
|
| 0: https://youtu.be/vZ1KmVmpC8o
| baxtr wrote:
| PFTE is different from PFAS.
| fire wrote:
| my cliff notes for teflon non-stick:
|
| * Don't use high heat, ever; you will destroy the coating and
| release toxic gas
|
| * Don't leave the pan to get too hot over medium/low heat
| either; if a teflon pan ever smokes, you have officially
| fucked up.
|
| * Don't use hard/sharp utensils against the pan; you will
| scrape off the coating
|
| * Don't clean the pan with abrasive scrubbers; you will
| scrape off the coating
|
| * Do use soft plastic, silicone, or wood utensils; these
| shouldn't damage the coating
|
| * Do wipe the pan after use, while the remnants of cooking
| are still hot ( honestly this is just a general tip; I always
| wipe out my carbon steel pan after use as well )
|
| * Do use a soft cloth or sponge and warm / hot water to clean
| the pan when hand washing; just like seasoned pans, you
| shouldn't need to clean them with actual soap all that often,
| but a light once over every so often will not hurt at all and
| helps mitigate dust/general grime.
|
| * Do soak the pan if you have somehow managed to carbonize
| food onto the pan; attempting to pry off stuck burned food
| can pull off parts of the coating.
|
| Personally though I'd recommend a stainless or carbon steel (
| cast iron if you don't mind the weight ) and seasoning it, or
| basically anything with a ceramic coating ( all cliff notes
| apply to ceramic as well, but due to general coating damage
| concerns rather than ptfe's production of toxic gas and
| generation of microplastic granules )
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| As someone who lives in SoCal I'm astonished by the amount of
| shoes sold here which are GTX. I always think they don't breathe
| as good as just normal shoes. Thoughts?
| gorbypark wrote:
| Anecdotally, they definitely don't breath as well as shoes
| without, which is to be expected give n the properties of gore-
| tex. Since Gore-Tex needs to be kept clean and washed
| regularity, my theory is the shoes will perform well in a
| lab/testing but in the real world will get dirty and "plugged"
| up pretty quick. Shoes are gonna see a ton of dirt compared to
| a jacket. I avoid Gore-Tex foot wear unless it's for a winter
| mountaineering and waterproofness is essential.
| simlan wrote:
| Yep using that material makes the breathability suffer. No
| comparison to other water restiant materials which are worse.
| If I were in your region I would not buy water restiant shoes
| to begin with.
| loeg wrote:
| Yeah, you don't need GoreTex stuff in SoCal.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-25 23:00 UTC)