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  January 2016

ARSCLIST January 2016

Subject:

Re: One more sticky-shed data point - Richardson treated tape

From:

Eric Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:22:19 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (64 lines)

I appreciate the depth, detail and clear explanations that Richard contributes, and the open discussions they inspire, particularly with complex issues.

Good point, Richard, about NDAs and residuals. I avoid reading content under NDA for the same reason.

~ Eric Jacobs

tel:408-221-2128
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.theaudioarchive.com


On Jan 22, 2016, at 5:48 PM, lists <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Arrgh, Richard:

You did exactly what I asked "please" not to get into in my early post.  Oh well-  I said quite  that hydrolysis is NOT REVERASBLE it is BI-DIRECTIONAL.  People keep trying to prove the wrong thing- it is not reversible, it is not reversible, it is not reversible- it is bi-directional!  The oligomers cross-link back into polymers.  We and others have proven this in the lab- not just Cuddihy. 

They don't cross-link back into the original polymers (not reversible!).  In addition, the polymers that are created by the cross-linking are almost always shorter than the originals- which means they are more subject to hydrolysis breakdown in the future than the originals-but they are still polymers and aren't "sticky".

Sorry for the "rant".

As for the carbon black, my contact at AMPEX who helped work on tape development indicated that the backcoating was not done as a static barrier but as a method to allow to tape to pack more smoothly.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 1:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] One more sticky-shed data point - Richardson treated tape

> On 1/22/2016 12:05 PM, lists wrote:
> Also,
> remember, hydrolysis is a bi-directional chemical reaction.  Not only 
> is there a threshold at which hydrolysis will occur, there is also a 
> threshold at which hydrolysis will run in the other direction and the 
> oligomers will cross-link back into polymers.

Hi, Peter,

That was definitely Bertram and Cuddihy's conjecture, but in the work that Ric Bradshaw did at IBM, he has seen evidence that this is not the case. As I understand it, he draws the following distinction:

In basic chemical theory, the reaction is bidirectional, but in the filled matrix that is the recording tape binder, there is little likelihood that the ends of the severed long chain molecules will find receptive "landing sites" [RLH's phrase, not RWB's] and even less likelihood that they will find the original points from which they were severed.

So, while there may be some random cross linking, the physical presence of the magnetic particles, lubricants, and other components of the mag coat matrix interferes with the reversing of the process. I believe I can state Bradshaw's conjecture as: yes, there may be some re-linking, but it never will come close to the original condition on day of manufacture. In other words, once it goes down this path, it's never coming all the way back.

Thank you for the clarification of Richardson's hypothesis. I don't think I ever got that out of what I've read of his, but I have not read all of the material he sent as some was sent under non-disclosure and I do not recall opening it. I felt if I read it and integrated it into my understanding, I might inadvertently disclose something. At one point in my past life, I commented, "I have signed so many NDAs that I can't even talk to myself!"

Also, thanks for confirming the existence of a threshold in the onset of hydrolysis. That makes sense.

One other question. One of your recent posts seems to suggest that the hydrophilic nature of the carbon black or other back-coating materials was part of the plan. Was it? Or was carbon black chosen to be conductive to dissipate the static charge which, under certain conditions can spark over and print a "tick" to the tape? Perhaps the hydrophilic nature of carbon black was either ignored or not known by the designers--or they thought that it wouldn't be an issue. It would be much more expensive to deposit a copper or silver (and probably even
aluminum) thin film on the back side of the base film to provide that conductivity.

Thanks!

Cheers,

Richard
-- 
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