Topic

Protocol B Version 1 Procedure and Test Results


Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Home Forums Gear Forums Make Your Own Gear Protocol B Version 1 Procedure and Test Results

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 11 posts - 101 through 111 (of 111 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1730273
    Richard Nisley
    BPL Member

    @richard295

    Locale: San Francisco Bay Area

    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.

    #1730363
    Sam Farrington
    BPL Member

    @scfhome

    Locale: Chocorua NH, USA

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

    Roger,
    "… 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.

    #1730373
    Brendan Swihart
    BPL Member

    @brendans

    Locale: 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…

    #1730379
    ziff house
    Member

    @mrultralite

    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.

    #1730564
    Richard Nisley
    BPL Member

    @richard295

    Locale: San Francisco Bay Area

    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.

    k

    k

    k

    #1730602
    David Olsen
    Spectator

    @oware

    Locale: 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.

    #1730606
    Ben Smith
    BPL Member

    @goosefeet

    Locale: Georgia

    David,

    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!

    #1730747
    Sam Farrington
    BPL Member

    @scfhome

    Locale: Chocorua NH, USA

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

    #2093849
    Dave @ Oware
    BPL Member

    @bivysack-com

    Locale: East Washington

    "David,

    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.

    #2093859
    Richard Nisley
    BPL Member

    @richard295

    Locale: San Francisco Bay Area

    David,

    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.

    #2128057
    Adam Kilpatrick
    BPL Member

    @oysters

    Locale: 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?

Viewing 11 posts - 101 through 111 (of 111 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...