LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced 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:

Thu, 4 Apr 2013 20:34:20 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (235 lines)

Hi, Tom,

Two chemists I've worked with on this, Benoit Thiebaut who was at the
Natural History Museum in Paris and Ric Bradshaw from IBM both have told
me I'll never get the "pool test kit" that I had hoped when I started
this investigation a while ago.

While I do not want to discourage Sarah from coming up with it when
other say it's impossible--that's just a challenge for some--here are a
few items to consider.

(1) Benoit found out that at least one Sony U-Matic cassette type number
had four different binder configurations (and not just minor
differences). I think I've referred to "running changes" being made in a
particular type number without changing the type number. We believe that
happened fairly frequently at Ampex.

This means that the same type number (U-Matics are easier to deal with
as the housing is clearly identified as to type and one does not have to
rely on the tape being in the original box or on the original reel as we
do with reels) can show very different degradation characteristics.

(2) Some of the degradation products are unreacted original components
of the manufacturing process. It is widely understood that
batch-to-batch consistency was not all that great, especially with Ampex
tape. This may also contribute to differences in aging and degradation
among different samples of the same tape type.

(3) It is believed that storage conditions over the years can create
differing degradation states. For instance, my comment that the LoC is
not seeing the necessity for extending baking times that you and I have
discussed.

So, even if we thought we knew for one tape, we don't really know. There
is a substantial cost to perform these tests and evaluations.

Some of the expensive techniques in use are:

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry (FTIR)
====================================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform_infrared_spectroscopy

http://mmrc.caltech.edu/FTIR/FTIRintro.pdf which says, in part
"So, what information can FT-IR provide?
. It can identify unknown materials
. It can determine the quality or consistency of a sample
. It can determine the amount of components in a mixture" (p. 2)

Here is a discussion of the use of FTIR for tape analysis.
http://www.morana-rtd.com/e-preservationscience/2011/GomezSanchez-13-06-2010.pdf

Here is the cite for Benoit's work:

Characterization of U-matic videotape deterioration by size exclusion
chromatography and pyrolysis gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and
the role of adipic acid
/Journal of Cultural Heritage/, Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 183-197
Benoît Thiébaut, Léon-Bavi Vilmont, Bertrand Lavédrine

Mass Spectrometry
===============

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry

What I have seen from this is a spectrum showing molecular mass of
various components of the analyzed substance. The molecular mass values
are measured in grams per mole.

What I recall is that there is roughly a decade variation between the
three types of substances of interest:
50,000 g/mol for binder
   5,000 g/mol for sticky stuff
      500 g/mol for lubricant

So when you look at a mass spectrogram and see a large spike around
50,000 and one around 500, that is normal. How Benoit helped show me
there was no loss of lubricant is we could still see an average-height
spike at 500 on a tape that squealed, but we saw a much bigger spike at
5,000 than in a normal tape. The roughly 5,000 g/mol material is the
sticky stuff and it's broken off the 50,000 g/mol material in many
instances.

Now going beyond this is a Ph.D. chemist exercise and very few
knowledgeable ones are worrying about this anymore. Benoit has gone on
to other disciplines, Ric is in private consulting, and Bhushan is no
longer interested in tape--he's focusing on nano technology. Ric has
helped me greatly but Bhushan basically said he was not interested in
helping even when he knew Ric had asked me to ask him.

Benoit's work in Paris was funded by PrestoSpace and they own it.
Bradshaw's and Bhushan's work is best summarized in Bhushan's two tomes
on magnetic media and the collection of individual papers cited therein,
though most are summarized in the books.

So now we know how to look at tapes using expensive tools that require
an advanced degree to really understand and where are we? We've learned
about the individual reel of tape we're working on. It might tell us
something about a small group but, since in audio, we cannot easily
identify tapes without an FTIR device, it's never going to be a
pool-test kit.

Science likes to work on advances most of the time. We saw what happened
when IPI looked at this -- they did not come up with meaningful results
and they are Ph.D. chemists.

Here are two LoC summaries:
http://www.loc.gov/preservation/scientists/projects/fidelity.html
http://www.loc.gov/preservation/scientists/projects/sticky_shed.html
that reference the work that Lambertus van Zelst reported on in March 2008
 From the second link, some conclusions:

  * Sticky shed results from the degradation of the binder that holds
    the magnetic particles to the base tape.
  * While storage at lower temperatures should increase tape lifespan,
    and lower humidity will decrease the rate of degradation that
    produces sticktion, PEU binders appear inherently instable. Magnetic
    tape made with such binders must be assumed to have a finite lifespan.
  * Several remedial techniques enable playback of "sticky" tapes, but
    none stabilizes the material. Storage conditions may impact
    recurrence speed, but sticky tape damage is irreversible and
    reformatting should be given high priority. This does not negate
    arguments in favor of retaining damaged masters in stringently
    controlled low temperature and humidity storage, in anticipation of
    future improved reformatting options.
  * Among common remedial treatments, baking and dry cleaning have
    advantages and disadvantages.
  * Attenuated reflection Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
    (ATR-FTIR) may meet the pressing need in audiovisual archives for a
    relatively fast, simple, and non-destructive diagnostic to identify
    sticky shed syndrome before playback. Further research is needed to
    demonstrate the utility of the method of a sampling of sticky tape
    in a wide range of manufacturers and formulations.

Van Zelst's bio is here (in 2005--I guess he worked on this 2005-2008)
http://www.loc.gov/preservation/outreach/visit/

It looks as if Bert's paper was never published. I did spend some time
with him on it. I wish the paper could be released.

I see there is a new paper out by S. Hobaica in the Journal of Applied
Polymer Science in 2012. I'm trying to get a copy and I think it quotes
van Zelst's paper as unpublished.

This Google Scholar link provides a good cross section of the literature.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=related:ej6fSKJU-ycJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

So, short of some revelation in the Hobaica paper, I still think that
all the govt's research and all the kings men will not help us do more
than we're doing now. As Ric said early on: "Copy it and give the
original tape Last Rites." We don't do that in audio, but you get the
idea. Ric essentially thinks we are on a fools errand (my paraphrase) to
try and preserve this degrading glue. This approach may be a boon to
Jamie Howarth if archives start to require "Mechanical Metadata".

Cheers,

Richard


On 2013-04-04 7:04 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> Hi Sarah:
>
> Your explainations are the clearest I've seen so far. Thank you!
>
> I agree with you, some science needs to be applied to tapes as they
> age. I'm wondering if it's possible to gauge amounts of degradation,
> can a scale be established? Then, can it be determined if a tape
> farther along the degradation scale will always need a longer baking
> time? Or is something else going on?
>
> In any case, it would be very helpful just to establish a means of
> measuring degradation and quantifying it. I have some known sticky
> tapes that have not been baked and some known sticky tapes that have
> been baked if someone needs samples for this research. I would assume
> this is a chemistry and/or physics project? To be honest, I'm
> surprised the P&E Wing of NARAS hasn't gone to the record companies
> and gotten money raised for this research. It has tremendous bearing
> on vaults and commercially valuable master tapes. If we can understand
> how the degradation works, what its timeline is likely to be, we can
> then study whether super-dry storage makes any difference.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sarah Norris"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 4:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sticky SHRED
>
>
> Hi, Tom (and list):
>
> Please find responses below:
>
>> Would you, for us non-scientists on the list, summarize Bradshaw's
> thinking and the opposing view(s)? Please try to keep it in the realm
> of what an English major or at least what a MLS major can comprehend.
>
> A more thorough description is in my post from April 2, but here's a
> very abbreviated summary:
>
> Bertram / Cuddihy's model says baking works because it repairs the glue
> that holds the media together.
>
> Bradshaw / Bhushan's model says baking works because it makes the media
> and other degraded fragments hold hands for awhile.
>
>> Do any of the theories you explored about what causes sticky-shed
> reveal why baking times would be increasing as the tapes get older?
>
> The models summarized above answer the question, "Why does baking work?"
> The question we're asking now is something closer to, "How are tapes
> aging?" I think the first question probably is relevant to the second
> question, but probably not in a direct, straight-line kind of way. It
> makes logical sense that longer required baking times indicate more
> advanced degradation. Is that really the case? Now might be a great
> time for a series of studies, one every few years, comparing required
> baking times with degraded binder in tape samples!
>
>
> Sarah Norris
> Conservator
> Texas State Library and Archives Commission
> phone: (512) 463-5446
> fax: (512) 463-5430
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>

--
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

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