The Card shark has a history of playing fast and loose with claims and credits. He came to my attention when he asserted that the effect of Get Sharky was never before possible. I found that problematic as the EFFECT is identical to one performed by Max Maven as early as the late 80's. He then asserted that the method had never before been possible. Except it's basically a Taylor Peek Deck, and that idea goes back to Ford Rogers at the beginning of the 1900's. Even when presented with sources prior to his own, he refused to acknowledge that the product owed at least a mention to the people on whose shoulders he was standing. He became very rude and dismissive. Many of those posts no longer exist of course as Brooks always protects his advertisers.
As I understand it, (according to him) he and Max eventually spoke and a correction to the instructions would be made. Nevertheless, his devoted fan boys (one of them is a self described groupie) use every opportunity at the Cafe to clutter the historical record with claims that are simply inaccurate. It saddens me when one's ego or quest for sales is so great they would put those desires over that of preserving the historical record or acknowledging those whose work was truly innovative.
(FWIW I thought Weber's line at Magic Live was fitting when he lamented that it would be nice for Christian to feel what it was like to have something stolen from HIM for a change.)
So, that was the context in which Science Friction was announced. As part of the marketing hype, Christian claimed that unlike others products, "no secret would be kept hidden" regarding his latest release. Several people began asking questions at the cafe, in the section in which it was announced, the section devoted to asking questions and speculation. It quickly became apparent that his promise of openness was an over statement, to say the least.
Concerns were raised over whether or not this was an original product, or merely a repackaging of an existing non-magic material. Further, some took issue with the claim that the product actually uses "nanotechnology" as advertised.
Rather than admit to being over zealous in his hype - hype used to collect customer data at his site - he stuck to his position and the conflagration ensued.
I have seen the product, and it's a plastic type coating which, when applied to a single card, allows one to create a temporary bond with another. It's like roughing fluid in that pressure must be exerted for the bond to be maintained, but unlike roughing fluid it need be applied to only a single surface.
Zip pens or avery restickable sticks would also do the job, and while a little pressure would be required to separate those surfaces, is that so much worse than pressure being required to keep them together? At least with these substances the double can be handled with complete freedom.
There is a "sheen" on the card, when held at an angle in the light, and while one could possibly detect a tactile difference on the treated area, most audience members probably won't care enough to look. Having said that, if you are working for aggressive audience members - the kind who try to split a single card because they think that may explain how it changed - then you might be in trouble.
the package comes with routines on DVD. I have not seen them, but the many of the comments on the cafe (by cardshark supporters) lead me to conclude that a competent card handler would probably not get their monies worth. I read several posts from people claiming they were using it as a crutch for their double lifts, for example.
for do it yourselfers, there was many posts (in the section devoted to speculation) addressing a substance called Plasti-dip. Plasti-dip comes in many incarnations, and several believed that one of these may turn out to be Science Friction.
Of course, many of those posts mysteriously vanished, as well as those having the temerity to voice an opinion contrary to Brooks'.