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:

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:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:07:15 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (100 lines)

Hi Richard:

Here's a datapoint I know from the beverage business. PET is actually quite permeable. That's why 
there are "good-by" dates on carbonated soft drinks. Back in the 90s, when the whole industry moved 
big-time to PET bottles, soft drink bottlers noticed that drinks left on the retail shelves too long 
went "flat" (lost carbonation), and consumer complaints would follow. Furthermore, aspartame breaks 
down faster due to airflow through the PET and also light exposure in clear-PET bottles. So, 
expiration dates were implemented and the problem pretty much went away. Notice how much longer a 
drink lasts in an aluminum can -- no leaching of CO2 through the sidewalls and no light/air exposure 
to break down the sweetness of the aspartame. Heating makes PET more permeable, as I understand it. 
So I'm not so sure that the base film (a VERY thin layer of older PET) doesn't first of all pass 
"contamination" from the back-coat to the oxide coat and also break down as a barrier during heating 
and cooling.

In the beverage business, it's well known that, the larger the percent of total drink contents 
touching the surface area of a PET bottle (ie smaller-sized bottle has more of the drink touching 
the sidewalls vs. a 2- or 3-liter bottle), the shorter the shelf life because more of the 
carbonation leaches out throught the PET faster. In the case of diet drinks, you usually see the 
smaller-sized PET bottles in fridge-retail settings, because colder temps staves off some of the 
aspartame deterioration. In fact, cold-storage staves off some of the CO2 leaching, now that I 
remember discussions with bottle makers. So heat is not good for PET's boundary properties.

Now that I think about this more, I wonder if part of the sonic degrading from repeated bakings 
might have to do with the PET base becoming either un-flat or un-straight or actually shrinking a 
little bit?

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] One more sticky-shed data point - Richardson treated tape


> On 1/25/2016 8:47 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>> Am I correct in thinking that tape is made of a base material
>> (polyester, in the case of the sticky tapes we are discussing here),
>> with the recording surface being a mix of metallic flakes and a binding
>> "glue" material?
>
> I would say mostly correct. I would modify the "recording surface" to "mag coat" and "metallic 
> flakes" to "oxide" or "oxide particles." "Metallic" implies what was later used in "metal 
> particle" tape or "metal evaporated" tape, MP and ME, respectively, so they are to be avoided when 
> talking about an oxide-based mag coat. I would also add to the mix an important element that stays 
> in the matrix, lubricant.
>
> The mag coat is loaded with enough lubricant to allow for squeal-free playback (squeal being 
> caused by stick-slip) under normal conditions. The term Loss of Lubricant (LoL) has been applied 
> to tapes that do not have enough lubricant to play back in their current state and exhibit 
> stick-slip, manifested as squeal. This appears to be a faulty concept as Benoit Thiebaut in Paris 
> a decade plus ago identified that there was still what looked like a normal load of lubricant in 
> such tapes using a mass spectrometer. My conjecture is while the normal load is still there, it is 
> insufficient to achieve stick-slip free playback with the current condition of the mag coat (as 
> demonstrated by the fallen Tg, among other things).
>
>> And on the other side of the base, a back-coat of
>> mostly carbon black with a binder material?
>
> Correct
>
>> So this begs a question --
>> because polyester is a plastic and inherently changes over time, is
>> there any interaction through the polyester between the chemistry of the
>> magnetic surface and the back-coat? Might this have to do with this
>> gooey-ness that doesn't respond to baking, might it be some sort of
>> breakdown of the polyester cause by some sort of chemistry on and
>> through the polyester? Or, in the case of non-back-coated tapes that
>> have this behavior (Sony 150 and maybe the 3M [175] type Richard has
>> mentioned), might there be some sort of chemistry that is turning the
>> polyester itself gooey, and that gooey-ness is "bubbling up" into the
>> magnetic layer?
>
> That is a very good question, but my answer is, at this point, I believe the PET to be stable 
> enough on the time scales we're discussing and in the environments we are discussing so that this 
> is not the case. As you may recall, my tape from the economizer cycle storage location was showing 
> "clear leader" sections where the mag coat had fallen off at the head of the tape, but the base 
> film was clear and fine looking.
>
> I think PET film is slightly permeable, so it is possible that the back coat can diffuse through 
> and affect the mag coat, so I won't rule that out, but I don't think the PET itself is entering 
> into the equation...yet under normal storage conditions.
>
> As we discussed a day or two ago, we're not certain if the stiffening in Maxell UD and 3M 206/207 
> is base film or coating related (two coats in the 3M 206/207, single coat in the Maxell UD).
>
> I am so pleased how this discussion is turning out this time around. Thanks Peter, Tom, and others 
> for some great information and ideas.
>
> 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

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