3

The WOWFIXIT web-page offers a product where you wipe a liquid over your phone screen and polish it.

They claim the result will make your protect your phone screen from scratches:

One of the many advantages of WOWFIXIT is that after applying WOWFIXIT to your device it will create an invisible layer that will protect your device from scratches and scuffs for up to one year. This layer reaches the full hardness of 9H on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, which is a scale that characterizes scratch resistance, and is similar to Sapphire, Ruby or Corundum. Its almost as hard as a Diamond.

[...]

Using WOWFIXIT invisible liquid screen protector makes your screen up to 40% stronger in less than 5 minutes.

One retailer claims it is "consists of nanoparticles of titanium dioxide" but they stopped sounding convincing when they said "protective layer reduces the electromagnetic radiation by 92.7%"

Does this product protect screens against scratches?

  • 1
    "protective layer reduces the electromagnetic radiation by 92.7%" Hopefully they don't mean full spectrum; I would not enjoy using my phone with 7.3% of the usual screen brightness. – JMac Sep 24 '18 at 12:09
1

There are several patent applications claiming to do what this product is advertised to do.

The only paper I found was "Hossein Habibi, M., Nasr-Esfahani, M., Emtiazi, G., & Hosseinkhani, B. (2010, June). Nanostructure Thin Films of Titanium Dioxide Coated on Glass and Its Anti UV Effect for Living Organisms" which showed a significant reduction in UV rays by applying liquid titanium dioxide layer to glass. Since cell phones do not emit UV light, this benifit is not pertinent.

  • This means there is no data about this protector having a measurable effect in phone screen resistance against damage? Even less electromagnetic radiation? – akostadinov Sep 22 '18 at 17:33
  • @akostadinov: It means that one particular person on the Internet was unable to find any data, which is much weaker and generally not acceptable as an answer here. – Oddthinking Sep 23 '18 at 6:00
  • @Oddthinking, While It is'nt difficult to disprove a preventative claim statistically, it is much easier to convince people your preventative product works. If 95% would not have gotten scratches even without the product. and you product does nothing, you can still claim 95% success rate and people will experience that. That is the hope of thousands of companies who are happy to take your money b/c their claims are not disproven (yet) by science. The burden of proof is on the company claiming to reject the null hypothesis. – Possum-Pie Sep 23 '18 at 10:38
  • @Possum-Pie: Yes, normally the burden of proof is on the claimant. However, here on Skeptics.SE we - by the very nature of the site - have to do things backwards and push the burden of proof onto the answerer. Otherwise, every single question pretty much has the same answer: "Ask the claimant to prove it." – Oddthinking Sep 23 '18 at 11:51
  • @Oddthinking. Thank you. I'm still struggling to keep opinion out of my posts, It takes practice. – Possum-Pie Sep 23 '18 at 13:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .