Forum Index » Make Your Own Gear » Protocol B Version 1 Procedure and Test Results

Display Avatars Sort By:
Richard Nisley
(richard295) - M

Locale: San Francisco Bay Area
Re: Re: Re: Sign in to windows live? on 04/27/2011 19:39:40 MDT Print View

I corrected the permissions setting for the .pdf document I stored on Windows Live. I also placed the "Protocol B Aging Source Data" pdf in my BPL profile gear list location. Now the .pdf source data should be available from either location.

Edited by richard295 on 04/27/2011 22:21:17 MDT.

Samuel C. Farrington
(scfhome) - M

Locale: Chocorua NH, USA
"Protocol B Version 1 Procedure and Test Results" on 04/27/2011 23:16:33 MDT Print View

Thank you for the note about the refresh button, and thanks again for the project.

"... but don't some of the Cuban Fiber fabrics go downhill fast!"
That was my impression also, with the exception of the Cubens with the heavier mylar, designated with the .18 suffix.

Now, the decision whether to toss the .08 material and replace it with .18.
Alternatives? 1) Use up the last of my older, but better silnylon; 2) Use up the last of my older PU coated nylon from TNF and WL weighing 1.6-1.7 osy total; 3) Keep looking for better newly manufactured silnylon; 4) Use the .08 to cover 'vestibule' areas only and take my chances. All much less expensive alternatives. But it is so hard to build something just OK, knowing it could be much better. However, I haven't even seen the new TNF DryWall fabric. Should that live up to claims and become available in the next year or so, any large investments now will seem pretty foolish. Think I'll go with option #4, and spend any disposable income for trekking.

Brendan Swihart
(brendans) - F - MLife

Locale: Fruita CO
Protocol B Version 1 Procedure and Test Results on 04/28/2011 00:01:10 MDT Print View

I still have not heard of ANY problems of cuben's water proofness/resistance in the field with tarps/shelters. I've heard of durability problems with the lighter weights, but my trust in cuben for shelters has not changed. This data does make me wary of trusting cuben for drybags after lots of use...

ziff house
(mrultralite) - F
Well on 04/28/2011 00:27:42 MDT Print View

Samuel if you are just going to throw that cuben away? maybe i should take it, for a bargain price.
I gave up testing my .5oz/yd tent waterproof is just waterproof.

Richard Nisley
(richard295) - M

Locale: San Francisco Bay Area
Ken Larson's Protocol B Supplemental Analysis on 04/28/2011 13:20:30 MDT Print View

Ken Larson did supplemental disaggregation analysis of the Protocol B source data. His work is incorporated in three additional pdf files. I stored Ken's pdf files in the same Windows Live Directory as the previously published Protocol B source data. I corrected the permissions for this directory; so, the following link should take you directly to Ken's work.

Ken Larson's Disaggregation Analysis

Ken's email to me ended by saying, "Even with the limited number of samples tested using the ISO 811:1981 standards this was a published beginning. It is up to those who use the documentation to determine what is best for them." I agree with Ken's summary.

The following are low resolution versions of Ken Larson’s high resolution files:
The CTF3 (Cuben) fabric that started this thread along with the Mylar Space Blanket material I tested is what 0 & 00 represent in Ken’s analysis.




Edited by richard295 on 04/28/2011 14:02:53 MDT.

David Olsen

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Comments on submission results on 04/28/2011 14:58:40 MDT Print View

1. Submission 24 is 70d nylon with a .25 oz coating of PU. Water resistance is less than
silnylon which also has a .25 oz coating (but of silicone and with a tighter weave).
I continue to believe it is the thickness of the coating rather than if it is PU or Sil that determines water resistance on the whole.

2. Submission 30 is 30d silnylon, pre 2004, discontinued by the mill due to air pollution
requirements. Submission 29 is post 2004 and from a different mill. Tho there is some difference in water resistance, (the older version aged to 733, the newer to 562) it is not as dramatic a difference as has been described by others prior to testing.

3. Submissions 32 and 33 are the same material as momentum 90.
Interesting to see the difference in water resistance compared to the lighter
momentum. Also compared to the lighter coated nylons.

Ben Smith
(goosefeet) - MLife

Locale: Georgia
Re: Comments on submission results on 04/28/2011 15:04:26 MDT Print View


I found the HH of submission 14 very interesting, as it has a higher HH than many of the coated nylons, but is itself uncoated. It has an extremely tight weave!

Samuel C. Farrington
(scfhome) - M

Locale: Chocorua NH, USA
"Protocol B Version 1 Procedure and Test Results" on 04/28/2011 21:32:16 MDT Print View

Covered myself by choosing option 4.
But it was an honest choice - that's what I intend to do.