LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  April 2013

ARSCLIST April 2013

Subject:

Re: Sticky SHRED

From:

"Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:06:18 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (102 lines)

Hi, Sarah,

Thank you for this increased detail. This is one of the reasons that 
your paper was a valuable addition to the literature. No, it did not 
give us a definitive answer, but it helped point the direction away from 
the Bertram and Cuddihy model which certainly Ric thinks is necessary. I 
defer to Ric on this...he's a Ph.D. chemist with a lifetime of 
experience in tape at IBM. Remember, he was the one who made the 
Challenger tapes playable after sitting on the sea floor for a long time.

One of my favourite indicators is the glass transition temperature (Tg) 
of the mag coat. Ric measured one tape that squealed to have a Tg of 
about 8 °C. My contribution to this is coming to the conclusion that if 
the Tg has fallen, chill the tape and recorder to below the current Tg 
and transfer at the reduced temperature. We could look at baking as 
increasing the Tg of the mag coat via whatever means. Tg is only a 
symptom but it relates to the stickyness or more correctly the 
rubbery-ness of the mag coat. The shedding is a separate issue, but if 
the mag coat is sticky, it stands to reason that some of the coating may 
(but doesn't have to) have more affinity for guides than its 
neighbouring molecules.

Do you happen to have specific references to Bhushan's tomes that 
describe this? If they are in your paper I'd love a final electronic 
copy of it.

Thanks!

Cheers,

Richard

On 2013-04-02 10:23 AM, Sarah Norris wrote:
> Having published a sticky shed paper with review from Richard Hess and Ric Bradshaw - and many thanks to them both - I may be able to summarize an understanding of baking that contrasts with the Bertram / Cuddihy view.  Ric could certainly do this more thoroughly, but I will make an effort, as it seems pertinent to the discussion.
>
> Bertram / Cuddihy would say that baking works because increased temperature and reduced relative humidity reverse the hydrolysis reaction by driving off water.  This actually re-makes the binder that holds media in a matrix, at least for a short time.
>
> Bhushan / Bradshaw would likely counter that this is not the case.  Instead, two distinct processes occur during baking.  Increased temperatures soften the binder and allow greater particle mobility within the coating slurry.  Meanwhile, reduced relative humidity drives off water and opens up hydrogen bonding sites between the binder molecules and the media particles.  Though the degraded binder is NOT re-made, the slurry does become more cohesive, at least for a short time.
>
> One critical difference between these two models is the roles played by temperature and RH.  In the Bertram / Cuddihy model, temperature and RH both achieve the same goal: driving off water.  In the Bhushan / Bradshaw model, temperature and RH achieve different goals: temperature softens binder while RH drives off water.  Both tools are required.
>
> My paper (ARSC Journal 41 No.2, Fall 2010) followed the Bertram / Cuddihy model and attempted to achieve baking-like results with only one of two seemingly redundant tools, RH.  I did not achieve predictable results, at least in the time span of the test.  There are several possible readings as to why this happened: one is a support of the Bhushan / Bradshaw model.
>
> -Sarah Norris
>
> Date:    Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:25:32 -0400
> From:    "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Sticky SHRED
>
> My theory is there is more degradation product which needs to be
> "evaporated" out or otherwise processed. I don't think anyone has
> definitively described the process to a good deal of satisfaction. Ric
> Bradshaw made it plain to me that he doesn't buy the reversible nature
> of the hydrolysis reaction as described by Bertram and Cuddihy. He
> indicated that it just doesn't happen that way in a filled matrix--the
> chain ends can't find their way back through the other material and join
> up. But we know baking works.
>
> 20 °C and 33 % won't fully stop degradation. I do not know what the LoC
> vaults for tape are kept at, but 20 °C is not that cold. 33 % is pretty
> dry. But your tapes are better off than most.
>
> I don't do enough rebakes to know. I have followed Tom's advice for a
> long time. Get a good transfer and be done with it. Ric Bradshaw was
> unequivocal about this as well.
>
> The best reason to keep the original tapes is that we have not recovered
> what Jamie Howarth calls "Mechanical Metadata" from them yet. He's made
> strides towards recovering the mechanical metadata even without
> processing it. There are certainly materials that are worthy of this
> approach. I don't know if there is a business case for this for me or
> other independent restorers.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> On 2013-04-01 5:00 PM, Peoples, Curtis wrote:
>> We have stored our tapes for ten years in an environment averaging 68 degrees F and a RH of about 33%.  It used to take 4-6 hours to bake a tape. We are now at 8 hours. I  am interested to know why these tapes are now taking longer.
>>
>> Curtis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:42 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sticky SHRED
>>
>> Any theories as to why baking times are increasing?
>>
>> Also, are you finding you need the longer baking times for re-bakes as well as first-time bakes?
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>>

-- 
Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager