I've also seen a glue-less paper binding trick where two pieces of paper are finely crimped together with some high pressure tool in alternating v^v^v^ patterns, actually making tiny tears in the paper. Does anyone know what kind of tool does that?
The problem with these staple-less staplers is that they permanently damage the paper. With a regular staple there are two tiny holes and that's it. You can bend open the staple to get back your individual sheets (e.g. to scan a particular page) and if you want to put them back together you can push the same staple or a fresh one back through the existing holes and bend it close.
You can repeat the process as many times as you want and there won't be any new damage to the paper. With a paperless stapler you would have to do new damage to the paper each time. Also, a regular staple is pretty much forever while these crimped folds can eventually come loose again.
What a cool read? I didn't expect lasers to be the answer. I use rubber bands all the time to hold paper wrap together. I thought the answer would be rubber bands or strings (analog version).
Can you elaborate on this? My guess would be, that because of their status as a government backed research institute, they invent a lot, but let others do the commercialisation. So patent fees seem like a natural choice for them, to recover their investments.
Fraunhofer has a ton of top of the line innovations. I'm glad it exists. If the only way to exist is for them to collect on patents they've produced, I don't see the issue.
I'd gladly take every Fraunhofer "innovation" 5 years later if it meant Fraunhofer didn't exist. Compression patent extortionists are the scum of the earth.
“By irradiating the paper with a CO laser, we create refusible, sugar-like
reaction products that we use instead of the synthetic materials or adhesives
that would otherwise be required to seal the paper by the heat sealing
process. In this way, we are essentially producing our own adhesive"
Not my field by any means, but I think it's primarily to avoid adhesives that are difficult to handle during recycling.
Turning the paper molecules into simple sugars and using thosr as an adhesive is presumably beneficial because the sugars would easily dissolve in the water when the paper is recycled. Most other industrial adhesives as I understand it are hydrophobic, so aren't as easily removed.
I had the same thought, but there are two differences: the amount of these compounds (presumably low) and how they behave in recycling compared to current adhesives. Maybe they wash out, maybe they can accumulate to a large degree without making the recycled paper worse.
The article doesn't tell, unfortunately. Worst case, a cool technical article is the only thing the technology is good for...
“Maybe they wash out” … “The article doesn’t tell”
It seems like you are engaging in rather emotional response when you admit you’re just hoping and making things up.
That is not a very scientific basis. Are you biased towards this project or Fraunhofer by any chance, maybe just Germany in general?
I agree with all the legitimate criticisms, especially considering that it is very possible that what they’re actually doing is using the laser to essentially create a hydrocarbon based glue in situ from the primary material itself.
It is an interesting discovery and process in and of itself. I’m not sure why there seems to be this obsessive defensiveness of Fraunhofer in the comments here.
There could be several reasons, but the PRopaganda people on this are going about things rather ham-fisted. My guess is that there are specific “eco” type grant or funding requirements that need to push the idea that it’s reducing “carbon” or oil dependence and can do away with mean old, no good, totally awful plastics; and cannot just be honest because of that, because all of the environmental stuff is so frequently inherently dishonest and rather delusional even, because ironically, the money of funding and profit and going to market cause their own greed, just from a different angle.
A hidden little dirty secret in Germany in particular is that all these boutique niche solutions are really just greenwashed, statist “capitalism” rather than greenbackwashed, de facto statist “capitalism”.
They’re both just theft from the multitude to enrich the minority, just by different means.
Fraunhofer institutes are not bullshit factories, they are doing research partially funded by industry, and the companies funding them are generally not the bullshit-heavy types (i.e. megacorps). The megacorps do their research in-house.
That’s chemically not correct in and of itself, but I do wonder if through the process they are effectively creating a hydrocarbon by freeing the oxygen from the carbohydrate to create this magic non-adhesive adhesive.
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.
> no one mentioned recycling. you introduced that.
It seems you didn't read the featured article:
web host topic section:
> Circular economy – better recycling of paper packaging
article summary:
> Paper packaging offers a number of advantages over its plastic counterparts: It has a high recycling rate, lower CO₂ emissions, and lower disposal costs. However, it cannot yet be sealed without adhesives or layers of plastic—a disadvantage for manufacturing and RECYCLING processes. In the PAPURE project, four Fraunhofer institutes are developing a laser-based process that enables completely adhesive-free paper packaging.
> These additives contaminate the paper, complicate the RECYCLING process, and reduce the quality of the RECYCLED material. This poses a significant challenge to the otherwise established and efficient paper RECYCLING process. In the PAPURE project, the Fraunhofer institutes for Applied Polymer Research IAP, for Material and Beam Technology IWS, for Process Engineering and Packaging IVV and for Machine Tools and Forming Technology IWU are looking to improve RECYCLABILITY by sealing paper packaging without any additives.
The overall structure of the article is that they first explain how the sealant adhesives cause problems for recyclability, and even when recycled, a degradation in material quality.
They then describe an admittedly neat and fancy trick to produce adhesive in-situ by laser treatment, but then don't mention anything about actual implications for recycling THIS (NEW?) ADHESIVE.
I don't mind that you don't read an article, or have no recollection of what you have read, but please don't downvote people with valid remarks or questions, or just point out that their phrasing is rude, because to many of us the content is more important than the etiquette, we weren't all raised in some crystal palace.
> 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.
so you admit lack of sufficient chemical knowledge, and then assume the it's fine without evidence stance, while acknowledging its raising questions in your mind? that it raises questions is a GOOD thing, because that's exactly what you would expect the research or its summary to describe: if you set out to address a certain problem, then find an alternative adhesive, one would expect the researchers to verify that this novel adhesive qualifies on the same yard sticks used to assess the old adhesives.
it's not the same as base material if chemical species change. Thats like saying "oh like the original paper the new in-situ adhesive is all hydrocarbons", but so were most of the prior adhesives as well...
But that doesn’t come with government grants and follow-on funding and subsidies to take it to market under government protection and by being able to use eco-marketing.
I thought that this was going to be illustrations of the marvelous ways that the Japanese wrap and secure gifts without using any tape. When I was in Japan years ago I would tell them that a purchase was a gift just to see how they wrapped things. I might even still have something that I never unwrapped because the finished thing was a work of art in itself.
It's a bit hard to search for, because they make one that punches a hole too (shows up in the video).
You can repeat the process as many times as you want and there won't be any new damage to the paper. With a paperless stapler you would have to do new damage to the paper each time. Also, a regular staple is pretty much forever while these crimped folds can eventually come loose again.
What could one improve how the operate?
Turning the paper molecules into simple sugars and using thosr as an adhesive is presumably beneficial because the sugars would easily dissolve in the water when the paper is recycled. Most other industrial adhesives as I understand it are hydrophobic, so aren't as easily removed.
The article doesn't tell, unfortunately. Worst case, a cool technical article is the only thing the technology is good for...
It seems like you are engaging in rather emotional response when you admit you’re just hoping and making things up.
That is not a very scientific basis. Are you biased towards this project or Fraunhofer by any chance, maybe just Germany in general?
I agree with all the legitimate criticisms, especially considering that it is very possible that what they’re actually doing is using the laser to essentially create a hydrocarbon based glue in situ from the primary material itself.
It is an interesting discovery and process in and of itself. I’m not sure why there seems to be this obsessive defensiveness of Fraunhofer in the comments here.
There could be several reasons, but the PRopaganda people on this are going about things rather ham-fisted. My guess is that there are specific “eco” type grant or funding requirements that need to push the idea that it’s reducing “carbon” or oil dependence and can do away with mean old, no good, totally awful plastics; and cannot just be honest because of that, because all of the environmental stuff is so frequently inherently dishonest and rather delusional even, because ironically, the money of funding and profit and going to market cause their own greed, just from a different angle.
A hidden little dirty secret in Germany in particular is that all these boutique niche solutions are really just greenwashed, statist “capitalism” rather than greenbackwashed, de facto statist “capitalism”.
They’re both just theft from the multitude to enrich the minority, just by different means.
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.
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.
It seems you didn't read the featured article:
web host topic section:
> Circular economy – better recycling of paper packaging
article summary:
> Paper packaging offers a number of advantages over its plastic counterparts: It has a high recycling rate, lower CO₂ emissions, and lower disposal costs. However, it cannot yet be sealed without adhesives or layers of plastic—a disadvantage for manufacturing and RECYCLING processes. In the PAPURE project, four Fraunhofer institutes are developing a laser-based process that enables completely adhesive-free paper packaging.
> These additives contaminate the paper, complicate the RECYCLING process, and reduce the quality of the RECYCLED material. This poses a significant challenge to the otherwise established and efficient paper RECYCLING process. In the PAPURE project, the Fraunhofer institutes for Applied Polymer Research IAP, for Material and Beam Technology IWS, for Process Engineering and Packaging IVV and for Machine Tools and Forming Technology IWU are looking to improve RECYCLABILITY by sealing paper packaging without any additives.
The overall structure of the article is that they first explain how the sealant adhesives cause problems for recyclability, and even when recycled, a degradation in material quality.
They then describe an admittedly neat and fancy trick to produce adhesive in-situ by laser treatment, but then don't mention anything about actual implications for recycling THIS (NEW?) ADHESIVE.
I don't mind that you don't read an article, or have no recollection of what you have read, but please don't downvote people with valid remarks or questions, or just point out that their phrasing is rude, because to many of us the content is more important than the etiquette, we weren't all raised in some crystal palace.
> 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.
so you admit lack of sufficient chemical knowledge, and then assume the it's fine without evidence stance, while acknowledging its raising questions in your mind? that it raises questions is a GOOD thing, because that's exactly what you would expect the research or its summary to describe: if you set out to address a certain problem, then find an alternative adhesive, one would expect the researchers to verify that this novel adhesive qualifies on the same yard sticks used to assess the old adhesives.
it's not the same as base material if chemical species change. Thats like saying "oh like the original paper the new in-situ adhesive is all hydrocarbons", but so were most of the prior adhesives as well...