I think we should also separate "information gained from laboratory science," such as (I assume) the 
Ampex patent, and some of the information Peter Brothers provided. Separate from would be 
"information gained from field work," such as comparisons of baking times, reports of recent 
baking/transfer experiences, etc. Another separate thread may be "non-baking remedies" such as 
Richardson's treatment. I think this will show, there are some field experiences that vary some from 
the research so far, and back up my point that there are still many unknowns. I would love to see if 
we can make a fact-based list of known-unknowns, because that then makes easy pickings for 
researchers and also provides something of a task list for someone with field experience who 
suddenly has access to laboratory equipment and methods. This would allow us to avoid the usual 
group-source cluster-f, and instead have some real fact-based collaboration. I think ARSC is the 
last chance for this to be done with the widest amount of expertise and real-world operators. The 
benefit of real-world operators is the ability to test theories derived in the lab in the widest 
possible range of circumstances.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Corey Bailey" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Baking times for Ampex 456 increasing? How Much? Why?


>I would to love see this topic continue and expand.
> I would suggest some ground rules:
> Start with one subject. As an example: "Baking Audio Tape". Stay within the agreed upon subject 
> for all pertinent discussion.
> When the thread needs to change topic, add a suffix. Example: "Baking Audio Tape - 2" tape" or 
> "Baking Audio Tape - Binder Hydrolysis"
>
> It will be much easier to mine the information and summarize it if we are conscious of organizing 
> the thread. Those who have connections outside the list should report that information back to the 
> thread. Likewise, (we) should invite as many people who are not part of the list but could 
> contribute valuable information.
>
> Although a forum format would be great for consolidating the information, this list should work if 
> the subject is well managed because this is an archived, publicly accessible, body of information.
>
> My $0.02
>
> Corey
> Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
> www.baileyzone.net
>
> On 1/29/2016 9:57 AM, Richard L. Hess wrote:
>> This has been a great thread--and I'd like to focus on one part of it.
>>
>> Perhaps there was a different version of Ampex 456 sold into the Commonwealth? Could that be? 
>> Although I think all of the 456 I have had has come from Opelika.
>>
>> Ted in the UK, Marie in NZ, and I'm in Canada and we are all seeing extended baking times for 456 
>> and related tapes much of the time.
>>
>> The problem is it's easy once you see the need for extended baking times to make it part of your 
>> protocol. It does no damage, whereas insufficient baking can create a problem.
>>
>> But, we have Tom saying he hasn't seen the need and that concurs with the Library of Congress's 
>> experience.
>>
>> When I discussed it with the LoC, they were quite surprised, but in the conversation, they 
>> indicated that all of their material was coming from their climate controlled vaults and had been 
>> there for extended periods.
>>
>> I know that some of the tapes I have received from Canada, Bermuda, and the USA have had horrible 
>> storage profiles. I suspect that is true for some of the 456 etc that I have received, but the 
>> worst tape I ever received was a reel of 201 1-inch that had absorbed so much moisture it had 
>> extruded through the slot in the hub sending a bump an inch into the tape pack. That recording of 
>> John Allan Cameron (his first) was salvaged partly through my efforts and substantially polished 
>> by the flying fingers of Paul MacDonald in covering each individual blurp.
>>
>> Can we see if we can come up with enough data about baking times that we can better understand 
>> this increase that is not uniform?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Richard
>>
>
>