dont be like that. so semantic youre missing the point so you can dote on yourself.
I feel like its pretty obvious they mean an adhesive in the sense of an additional substance or agent. Just because they use a laser to modify the paper structure to effectively become sticky, doesnt detract at all from the goal and point of the title. that no additional products/agent/glues were needed.
absolutely missing the point of it all just to jerk your ego off.
this is so prevalent on HH that it’s normalized and most the cerebral bozos cant read between lines beyond their self righteous vantage.
I think the remark -while rude- brings up an important point: is the in-situ generated adhesive compatible with the paper recycling processes? if so, it seems that simply applying the discovered in-situ chemicals artificially would be faster and not rely on CO2 laser tube set-up (they don't last forever).
If it IS compatible with the later recycling steps, then what prevents us from simply applying a similar or simplified mix of chemicals generated by the CO2 laser treatment?
Suppose some adhesives already use the same or similar chemicals, the question would arise if you really discovered a compatible glue, or if you just discovered a proper dosage in your application? We can keep coming up with elegant research showing this or that is compatible with a certain recycling step, in the case that some players in industry use inappropriate amounts of glue, the problem would not be a lack of compatible glues but proper dosing, or tracing the manufacturer / end-users of the glue/paper combination that gunked up some recycling process.
no one mentioned recycling. you introduced that. the above poster is simply conflating altering a materials surface to be sticky, with applying a 3rd party compound to achieve tack. its intellectually tacky, and i dont even know what youre doing. youre just leveraging this to bring about a point of your own, which is deserving of being its own parent comment. but in earnest reply, the question I have is in the change in material surface that becomes sticky. How does that become incompatible with current recycling processes if the base material was compatible? I dont know enough chemistry but it seems to me the post-co2-treatment material should break down the same way in an industrial recycling process.
this seems unnecessarily pedantic
It seems like an odd point to run interference on for a scientific association of scientific institutions; that scientists should be less pedantic.
dont be like that. so semantic youre missing the point so you can dote on yourself.
I feel like its pretty obvious they mean an adhesive in the sense of an additional substance or agent. Just because they use a laser to modify the paper structure to effectively become sticky, doesnt detract at all from the goal and point of the title. that no additional products/agent/glues were needed.
absolutely missing the point of it all just to jerk your ego off.
this is so prevalent on HH that it’s normalized and most the cerebral bozos cant read between lines beyond their self righteous vantage.
I think the remark -while rude- brings up an important point: is the in-situ generated adhesive compatible with the paper recycling processes? if so, it seems that simply applying the discovered in-situ chemicals artificially would be faster and not rely on CO2 laser tube set-up (they don't last forever).
If it IS compatible with the later recycling steps, then what prevents us from simply applying a similar or simplified mix of chemicals generated by the CO2 laser treatment?
Suppose some adhesives already use the same or similar chemicals, the question would arise if you really discovered a compatible glue, or if you just discovered a proper dosage in your application? We can keep coming up with elegant research showing this or that is compatible with a certain recycling step, in the case that some players in industry use inappropriate amounts of glue, the problem would not be a lack of compatible glues but proper dosing, or tracing the manufacturer / end-users of the glue/paper combination that gunked up some recycling process.
no one mentioned recycling. you introduced that. the above poster is simply conflating altering a materials surface to be sticky, with applying a 3rd party compound to achieve tack. its intellectually tacky, and i dont even know what youre doing. youre just leveraging this to bring about a point of your own, which is deserving of being its own parent comment. but in earnest reply, the question I have is in the change in material surface that becomes sticky. How does that become incompatible with current recycling processes if the base material was compatible? I dont know enough chemistry but it seems to me the post-co2-treatment material should break down the same way in an industrial recycling process.
1 reply →