- Apr 27, 2011 at 6:39 pm #1730273
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.Apr 27, 2011 at 10:16 pm #1730363Sam FarringtonMember
@scfhomeLocale: Chocorua NH, USA
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.Apr 27, 2011 at 11:01 pm #1730373Brendan SwihartMember
@brendansLocale: Fruita CO
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…Apr 27, 2011 at 11:27 pm #1730379ziff houseMember
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.Apr 28, 2011 at 12:20 pm #1730564
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'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.Apr 28, 2011 at 1:58 pm #1730602David OlsenMember
@owareLocale: Steptoe Butte
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.Apr 28, 2011 at 2:04 pm #1730606Ben SmithMember
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!Apr 28, 2011 at 8:32 pm #1730747Sam FarringtonMember
@scfhomeLocale: Chocorua NH, USA
Covered myself by choosing option 4.
But it was an honest choice – that's what I intend to do.Apr 16, 2014 at 7:40 pm #2093849owareusa.comMember
@bivysack-com-2-2Locale: East Washington
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!"
Intrepid fabric (14) is the factory name for momentum 90 and the 20d I use (numbers 32 and 33) I call it Quarktex. Titanium Goat called and asked If I wanted to go in on an run so we each wouldn't have to buy so much at once. I guess it shows there is some difference even in the same material in HH. At least in this testing method.Apr 16, 2014 at 8:11 pm #2093859
Please note that weave for the "taffeta" version is very different from the "rip stop" version of this fabric. Submission 14 is "taffeta" and both 32 – 33 are "rip stop".
All the "taffeta" versions for this fabric test within 10% of each other and have much higher HH than the "rip stop" versions. Likewise all of the "rip stop" versions test within 10% of each other and have lower HH than the "taffeta" versions.Aug 16, 2014 at 10:46 am #2128057Adam KilpatrickMember
@oystersLocale: South Australia
So, based on these analyses, it seems to me that CT1K.18 is somehow strangely missing from the backpacking market place. With the extra thick mylar, this would potentially be great for lightweight floors/groundsheets…or am I the only person thinking this?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.