Richard,
A thought: These tests may be at their the most helpful when they focus on materials that can be readily purchased by the average MYOG consumer. I'm finding that way too much of my time is being spent sourcing materials, and it's taking all the fun out of MYOG. Right now, I'm using fabrics and materials purchased over five years ago because they are better. They are almost run out, and regretably, BPL is not helping. I know ... say it ain't so.

What was the thickness of the Plastizote CCF from Oware?

The thickness is 3 mm or .118". It is a much more durable material than the light foam I currently use under my Neoair to protect it. Additionally it doubles as a waterproof ground cloth. I am planning on ordering a sheet from Oware.

Samuel,

I am not BPL so I can say "yes" or "no" without having to cross my fingers. Does that sound like a whishy-washy answer? Yah, I think so. (smile)

Richard,
Very zen-like for a scientify sort.
Sam

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://www.noahlamport.com/index.htm

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:

Lance asked me to investigate the hypothesis that some silnylons have a right side and wrong side. His black Noah Lambert sil-nylon 2NDS, purchased March 2004, has a very subtle difference in shininess between the two sides. The difference is not as significant as a PU coated nylon or calendared fabrics but, it can be detected with the proper lighting and close scrutiny. Most modern silnylons and CTF3 (Cuben) submission have been shininess symmetric. For shininess symmetrical fabrics I just arbitrarily labeled one side with the submission number and directed the water pressure against the other side for all tests. For any fabric with a PU coating or sil/PU coating, I always tested the water pressure coming from the non-PU side as is the standard usage for these materials.

I marked the submission number on the subtlety less shiny side of fabric. I then outlined, with a thin silver paint marker, widely spaced dash marks for three non-overlapping circular areas the same size of the test head. See the photograph at the end of this submission. This allowed me to insure the three tested areas on both sides exactly aligned to test.

Another thing we wanted to test is how the variance in our visual acuity would result in two independent tests. He did not divulge his test numbers for the three samples he provided me.

Position 1 labeled side: 1265.39 mm H2O
Position 2 labeled side: 1405.98 mm H2O
Position 3 labeled side: 1265.39 mm H2O
Average of three positions: 1312.25 mm H2O
Standard deviation of three Positions: 81.17


Position 1 labeled side: 1230.24 mm H2O
Position 2 labeled side: 1265.39 mm H2O
Position 3 labeled side: 1195.09 mm H2O
Average of three positions: 1230.24 mm H2O
Standard deviation of three Positions: 35.15

200X bottom lit micrograph to illustrate weave density voids




Photo showing the marks to insure the multiple dual side tests were perfectly aligned

Edited by richard295 on 04/07/2011 19:04:09 MDT.

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://www.noahlamport.com/index.htm

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:

I only took one center sample measurement of this submission.

200X bottom lit micrograph to illustrate weave density voids

Edited by richard295 on 04/07/2011 20:46:12 MDT.

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://www.questoutfitters.com/coated.html#SILNYLON 1.1 OZ RIPSTOP

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:

I only took one center sample measurement of this submission.

200X bottom lit micrograph to illustrate weave density voids

Edited by richard295 on 04/07/2011 20:47:02 MDT.

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://www.zpacks.com/materials.shtml

Supplemental information from Ken Larson:
This is virgin .51oz Cuben CT1K.08 Cuben stitched sample. This sample is from a 54 in wide roll and from a different material lot than the 1st stitched .51oz Cuben CT1K.08 Cuben I had sent.

200X bottom lit micrograph to illustrate weave density voids

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://brooks-range.com/rocket-tent.html

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:

On the Brooks Range Web site they define their CTF3 based Rocket Tent as follows:

• Metalized color minimizes heat loss in winter, heat gain in summer
• 2-person tent with a vestibule
• Frame Structure provided by Ski Poles & Avalanche Probe
• 3 Zippered Vents deliver fresh air and control heat
• Water Resistant to pressure of 5000+mb (RN – This converts to >50,985.8 mm H2O)
• Sidewall tie-through holes for staying anchored inside
• Optional ground cloth available

http://www.trailspace.com/blog/2009/07/23/outdoor-retailer-brooks-range-rocket-tent.html says:

Originally used as sailcloth, CTF3 is very UV- and tear-resistant and exceeds the standards of sailcloth testing. It’s also 5,000+mm waterproof, “absolutely waterproof,” said Mark Kelly of Brooks-Range. “The fabric will burst before water penetrates it.”

The tent material is an opaque reflective yellow/green on the outside and clear reflective silver on the inside. Micrographic analysis indicates that this product appears to be closely related to CT2AK.18 (similar to CT2K.18 with one side aluminized). The main differences from other CTF3, tested to date, appear to 1) be a large quantity of light-yellow/green colored adhesive used to bind the Dyneema and the Mylar and 2) the CTF3’s inside Mylar sheet has a reflective coating similar to a Space Blanket. Since an aluminized coating reduces gas transport through Mylar, it is possible we may see a higher HH for this material after aging. Offsetting this factor, the aluminized coating may degrade with flexure.

Do to the very unique structure of this CTF3 (Cuben) product I placed many supplemental micrographs on the external site. The link to that site is below. This version of CTF3's reflective surface on one side yield very unique micrographs. Please note the lighter color micrographs are designed to emphasize the Dyneema grid and colored adhesive. The darker color micrographs are designed to show the interior of the construction. Each time you left click your mouse over an image it will increase in resolution up to a max of approximately 1600 x 1200.

High Resolution & High Magnification CTF3 Submission Images

Numerous bubbles in the Mylar film are clearly visible in the 400x micrograph. I think Colin Krusor’s theory of randomly aligned bubbles, in combination with flexure, causing fissures is a plausible explanation.

Brooks Range will not provide just fabric and so one of their actual products was analyzed. I do plan on aging some of this material in combination with the other Batch 2 submissions. This actual product will not be shipped to Roger Caffin as part of Protocol B; it will be returned to its owner.

Supplemental information from Ken Larson:
I looked at last year’s spec sheet and found CT2K.18/KM.5 which is what Brooks-Range must be using. It is listed as 56.4 g/m2(1.66 oz/yd2). KM.5 is the reflective coating."

200X top lit micrograph to illustrate construction

Edited by richard295 on 04/13/2011 13:02:30 MDT.

I received an email today from Michael Ray with a GREAT idea. It said, "I wondered if LDPE (eg, Heatsheets) would be suitable for your testing protocol since it technically isn't a fabric, but I use a tarp I made from it. I believe what I have is thinner (1 mil) than what is sourced to AMK for their blankets. To be used as a tarp, it must be reinforced with special duct tape on the edges and ridgelines to prevent stretching the material - I'm not sure if that would work with your HH tester."

I tested the material even though we are past the date for new Protocol B submissions. I already had the material on hand and didn’t have to go through all of the time consuming Protocol B procedure. There was very significant expansion of the material (stretch) and then catastrophic & unrecoverable failure at 2109 mm H2O; the material ruptured. There was no leakage up to that point.

> I received an email today from Michael Ray with a GREAT idea.

Truth be known, the original idea came from George "Al" Geist in this thread. While he preferred mylar blankets, he made one from AMK Heetsheets to use at Philmont. I ordered a roll direct from the company that makes the Heetsheets brand. I believe mine may be thinner (1 mil) than what AMK blankets are. The only downside is what I have comes in 4x6 sheets so you tape 2 together to have an 8x6 tarp or you need to use more sheets for other sizes and have a bunch more seams to tape.

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://www.cubictechnology.com/CTF3%20PRODUCT%20INFO%20PACK%2007192010_4c.pdf

Supplemental information from Ziff House:
This was virgin CT18K.18 (.7 oz/yd2 virgin and 1.32 oz/yd2 after supplementation) coated with Proform urethane clear-coat, thanks to the creative mind of Ziff House. He said, “Now an interesting discovery, I happen to be waterproofing the new skin of my ultra-light kayak using Proform urethane clear-coat. As an experiment i brushed some on a piece of lightest Cuben, heat dried it, seems to be a perfect match, can't scrape it off or wrinkle it off. Hmmm.”

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:
I did 12 measurements to determine the variability of the urethane coating thickness. All measurements were ¾” in from the edge and are in mm. They were taken 3 per side, starting with printed oz/yd2 label. The readings were:

.10, .09, .07, .07,.07, .09 .06, .06, .09 .08,.06, .13.

The variability of the coating thickness is applicable to the increased average areal density. This sample may exhibit better aging characteristics than uncoated CTF3 submissions, with the same original Mylar thickness. If so, then various solvent thinning ratios and application methods bear future investigation to determine if the same benfefit can be achieved with lower incremental areal density.

Do to the very unique structure of this CTF3 (Cuben) product I placed many supplemental micrographs on the external site. The link to that site is below. Each time you left click your mouse over an image it will increase in resolution up to a max of approximately 1600 x 1200.

High Resolution & High Magnification CTF3 Submission Images

200X bottom lit micrograph to illustrate construction

Edited by richard295 on 04/12/2011 07:22:20 MDT.

thanks for doing those extra measurements, under magnifcation my 'urethane'looks a lot like the green stuff used on the range rocket material.

Ziff,

In Submission 43’s 400x top lit micrograph, it appears to show one of your last vertical brush stoke patterns after your earlier base urethane layer had begun to firm up. It also appears to show a black paint brush fiber that came off your brush, and pollen grains (maybe dust grains) between the urethane and the Mylar.

To the best of your recollection, did the CTF3 appear to be very clean and so you just applied the urethane over it or did you wash and air dry the CTF3 immediately prior to the urethane application?

Edited by richard295 on 04/12/2011 11:09:44 MDT.

you are good ,ever work in forensics? [or maybe i should get a microscope too!] HaHa!ya, i just ran some on with the brush i was using [el slob-o], i need a clean room if i ever go into production.

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://www.eventfabrics.com/

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:
I tested the air permeability of this WPB UL shelter material at .8 CFM. To put that number in perspective, the Polartec Neoshell WPB material has a spec. value of .5 CFM.

The good news is that this material’s combination of breathability and virgin hydrostatic head is excellent. The bad news is that there were already a number of membrane damage spots. The eVent is only between 30 and 100 micrometers thick. Without a third layer or a liner, it is vulnerable to damage from any sharp or abrasive surface.

The micrograph at the end of this submission shows an example of one of the many damaged areas I discovered looking at the surface under the scope at only 60X magnification. For the hydrostatic head test, I selected an area without surface damage to get an intact membrane test.

The link to supplemental high resolution micrographs, for this material, is below. Each time you left click your mouse over an image it will increase in resolution up to a max of approximately 1600 x 1200.

High Resolution & High Magnification eVent Submission Images

60x top lit micrograph to illustrate one of the damaged eVent areas

Edited by richard295 on 04/27/2011 00:30:15 MDT.

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://www.eventfabrics.com/

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:
I tested the air permeability of this WPB UL shelter material at .4 CFM. This is exceptional quality material with a perfect weave and tricot backing. The eVent membrane is of uniform thickness and the surface is flawless.

The link to supplemental high resolution micrographs, for this material, is below. Each time you left click your mouse over an image it will increase in resolution up to a max of approximately 1600 x 1200.

High Resolution & High Magnification eVent Submission Images

40x top lit micrograph to illustrate tricot construction and the eVent membrane

Edited by richard295 on 04/22/2011 01:00:17 MDT.

Detailed Fabric Info:
http://www.cubictechnology.com/CTF3%20PRODUCT%20INFO%20PACK%2007192010_4c.pdf

Supplemental information from Javan Dempsey:
- Weight: 30.6g/m^2
- Waterproofness: ~9,000mm of hydrostatic head at 100mm Diameter
- Tear strength: ~45 N
- Breathability: ~1100 g/m^2 / 24 hours @ 75 F & 47% RH

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:
The test head on my commercial HH tester is approximately (within 10%) the same size used for the CTF Waterproofness speciation listed above. This material tested 0 CFM air permeability in one location and .15 in another location. For each of the two random sampling areas, there was one pinhole that appeared at about 1,500 mm H2O but stayed static in size. I am guessing this is what accounts for the discrepancy between the two slightly different air permeability readings.

The Breen colored side appears to be the typical CTF3 Dyneema grid held together with Breen colored adhesive. The adhesive and Dyneema grid serves as a screen foundation for an additional Mylar sheet used temporarily during the manufacturing process; it is designed to be peeled off the colored side by the end-user. The WPB urethane coating is placed on the back side (white side). The removable Mylar sheet apparently keeps the PU from protruding through the colored surface during the manufacturing process and reduces the amount of PU required for a lighter material.

The link to supplemental high resolution micrographs, for this material, is below. Each time you left click your mouse over an image it will increase in resolution up to a max of approximately 1600 x 1200.

High Resolution & High Magnification CTF3 Submission Images

40x top lit micrograph to illustrate the foundation screen of Dyneema fibers and adhesive that serve as the foundation for the polyurethane which is coated on the other side (white side)

Edited by richard295 on 04/25/2011 23:24:03 MDT.

Richard, I know Steve from suluk46 mentioned that there is a layer that he had to peel off the wpb cuben...something he was initially unaware of. Was curious to know if the wpb cuben had this layer removed?

From Steve's site: "...Some of you may notice that I had originally stated a weight of 5.5 oz. Well, guess what, Cubic Tech informed me that I did not remove the protective layer off of one side of the fabric. I peeled it off and voila! Half the weight!"