Researchers Find Way to Keep Metal Surfaces Free of Ice
Researchers at Harvard University claim to have invented a unique coating for materials that can entirely prevent ice formation on metal surfaces.
Under deep-freezing conditions the technology can prevent ice accumulation for a longer time, reducing the amount of ice and alleviating the effect of adhesion as the ice easily slides off the metal surface.
Called SLIP, short for Slippery Liquid Infused Porous Surfaces, the Harvard researchers have come up with an ice-repellent, non-toxic coating that has a defect-free, molecularly flat liquid interface and is immobilized using a hidden nano-structured solid that keeps the liquid in place. According to the scientists, the liquid can be applied to a range of different products, including airplane wings, roofing, railings, or cooling fins.
"This new approach to icephobic materials is a truly disruptive idea that offers a way to make a transformative impact on energy and safety costs associated with ice, and we are actively working with the refrigeration and aviation industries to bring it to market," said Joanna Aizenberg, professor of materials science at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.
The icephobic coating is believed to be extremely effective especially in environments with substantial humidity. On airplane wings or roofs, ice buildup that could occur under extreme conditions could simply slide off by tilting a structure or via "slight agitation," vibration or wind.

First the obvious safety that comes from this: Ice can form at high elevations, northern areas etc etc resulting in the risk of crashes.
Second the not so obvious. This will mean that aircraft will no longer need to carry heaters on the wings or not as many heaters. Resulting in a lighter aircraft that requires less fuel or can carry more people/cargo or both.
This can also mean that the engines of aircraft will not need heaters as well, resulting in lighter engines/more efficient engines.
Buy it now! Just with 40 adams and you get yourself a bargin~
First the obvious safety that comes from this: Ice can form at high elevations, northern areas etc etc resulting in the risk of crashes.
Second the not so obvious. This will mean that aircraft will no longer need to carry heaters on the wings or not as many heaters. Resulting in a lighter aircraft that requires less fuel or can carry more people/cargo or both.
This can also mean that the engines of aircraft will not need heaters as well, resulting in lighter engines/more efficient engines.
Aren't aircraft beginning to use composite materials instead of metal?
They're so expensive that they take a while for the older aircraft (70's and 80's) to be replaced, and it doesn't help that the airline industry is trying to delay replacements to save money.
Could I ask where you got the number 100 from? I ask because I remember after the challenger disaster a teacher of mine saying that they estimated 25 missions per vessel before the risk of disaster. Seems that numbers can be completely arbitrary if you ask me.
The initial estimates were hopelessly optimistic. NASA envisioned something similar to an airliner, launching as frequently as every two weeks.
The realities of the expense and difficulty in getting them ready for launch resulted in a much longer turnaround time, with the record being two launches for one shuttle in 54 days. After Challenger, they added even more safety precautions, and launches were even less frequent, with the post challenger record being twice in 88 days.
and could make for some interesting reverse phase cooling designs LOL
Um, what? The space shuttle Challenger was destroyed in 1986 because of a solid rocket booster "O" ring failure, in part caused by low temperatures at launch. The space shuttle Columbia was destroyed on reentry in 2003, cause attributed to the left wing being hit by a piece of foam from the Space Shuttle External Tank during launch. Ice had nothing to do with either disaster. What ice are you talking about?
I assume he was just a bit confused about Challenger. The failure was the result of the o-ring being too cold and becoming brittle. It wasn't actually ice, of course, but it was frozen. This technology would have done nothing to prevent it.
OK No more ice during suicide LN2 runs.... But then what do we do with the water?
The water would, of course, run off. I think the savings could be that the tanks would not have to be as insulated if they did not get 'frosted', saving weight and space?