Protocol B Version 1 Procedure and Test Results

If you have been keeping up with the forum concerning Protocol B, Batch 1 and 2 Test Results you see data that has been generated needs further exploration if a thorough understand can come about…

Some items that would aid in the understanding and processing of the Cuben Fabrics data now undergoing HH Testing by Richard would be:
• The dates these fabrics were manufactured.
• What was the width of roll the fabric samples came from?
• Does Cubic Tech have different grades of Cuben?
• Were any of the Cuben sample tested silicone-coated?
• What QC checks are routinely done by Cubic Tech and the manufacturers buying their products?

I think answers to the questions above would aid Richard in his quest for additional information for the understanding and processing the Cuben data and why some tests are demonstrating positive attributes as other are not. If you can aid with any of the above questions may I ask that you send your feedback directly to Richard.

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://owareusa.com/fabric.html

200X bottom lit micrograph to illustrate weave density voids

Wow, that is the good silnylon!

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://owareusa.com/fabric.html

200X bottom lit micrograph to illustrate weave density voids

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://owareusa.com/fabric.html

200X bottom lit micrograph to illustrate weave density voids

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://www.nano-tex.com/index.html

Supplemental information from Nano-tex:
Q-IS NANO-TEX FABRIC PROTECTION WATERPROOF?

A-Nano-Tex Resists Spills fabrics are NOT considered waterproof nor would they be considered a barrier product but Nano-Tex Resists Spills fabric are a superior repellant technology.

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:
This material would not typically be considered a light weight shelter material. I measured the air permeability at 38.2 CFM and the thickness at .26 mm.

200X bottom lit micrograph to illustrate weave density voids

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://owareusa.com/fabric.html

200X bottom lit micrograph to illustrate weave density voids

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://owareusa.com/fabric.html

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:
The fabric weave voids in this material only were too far apart at 200x magnification from below to see a set of illumination points. I submitted an extra micrograph as was required for this unique fabric weave.

200X bottom lit micrograph to illustrate weave density voids

100x bottom lit (high intensity) micrograph to illustrate weave density voids

Detailed Fabric Description:
http://owareusa.com/fabric.html

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:
It is easiest to see the pore structure of this material from a 60x top lit position. Even to the naked eye, the construction looks like a lot of granules glued together and you wonder if water will leak through… it won't.

60X top lit micrograph to illustrate weave density voids

Submissions still in the Protocol B submission queue will be promptly processed by me as I receive them. After completing the pending submissions and negotiating the details of the batch 2 aging procedure with Roger Caffin, my participation in submission testing is complete. Thank you to the many folks who provided Protocol B submissions as well as reporting DIY testing.

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

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

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

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

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 4×6 sheets so you tape 2 together to have an 8×6 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

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?