PAPER CHEMISTRY LABORATORY, INC.  
.....the acknowledged leader in papermaking chemistry instrumentation


One Washington Square  Suite 4G
Larchmont, New York 10538



For your convenience, accessible via these domains:

papermaking-chemistry.com
papermaking-nanotechnology.com
papermaking-nanoscience.com
britt-jar-nanotechnology-chemistry.com


 

Technical Director:  John Penniman


JAR orders, information, contact Office Manager Barbara:
EMAIL: barbara@papermaking-chemistry.com

 

 

E-MAIL: john-penniman@papermaking-chemistry.com
Skype teleconference available by appointment


OFFICE FAX:   845 - 223 - 3789

 

 


move_hdr3a.gif - 115614 Bytes


 

 

 

     Site Directory     

Company Products:

zd_ani_7.gif - 51073 Bytes

Britt Jar / Nano Britt JarsTM
& Price Schedules

Zeta Data Technology Products

 

John Penniman was recently published in the August 2009 Issue of Paper 360°. 
Click here to view

A New Paradigm Is Needed


Technical Papers:

"Maximizing van der Waals Force in Papermaking"


Other Technical Papers

 

Newsletters:


September 2009 Newsletter

Cost-Efficient Papermaking

August 2009 Newsletter

Evolution of Papermaking Nanotechnology

July 2009 Newsletter

A New Paradignm is Needed

May 2009 Newsletter

Papermaking Nanotechnology:
A Definitive Overview

Spring-Summer 2009 Newsletter

Papermaking Nanotechnology Is a Game Changer

Spring 2009 Newsletter

Nanometric Evolution of Papermaking

Winter 2008-2009 Newsletter

Available Now:
Papermaking
Nanotechnology

Fall 2008 Newsletter

Digital Printing Paper Optimization:
Computer Control
of the Wet End

Summer 2008 Newsletter

Four Fatal Flaws of the Papermaking Process

Spring 2008 Newsletter

Ink Jet Paper Performance


Summer 2007 Newsletter

ZETA NANO Wal-Mart 360 Sustainable Packaging Initiative

      

Winter 2006 Newsletter

Papermaking Nanometrics: Maximize Cost Efficiency and Quality Cost

      

October 2006 Newsletter

How Papermaking Nanotechnology Emerged from Wet End Chaos - Maximizing Cost

      

Summer 2006 Newsletter

Nanotechnology Enables Cost-Effective P&W Paper Efficiency at the Highest Level of Quality

      

Spring 2006 Newsletter

NANOFLOCCULATION,
Part II: Kinetics: Compensating for Cationic Decay

      

Fall-Winter Newsletter 2005-06

NANOFLOCCULATION

      

EXTRA SPECIAL Summer 2005

Maximizing Cost-Efficiency of Paper and Board Production

      

Summer 2005

Papermaking Nanotechnology Has Multiple Benefits 
How to Maximize Quality and Productivity at  Minimum Cost

      

 

Spring 2005

CLOSED LOOP NANOTECHNOLOGY CONTROL

      

January 2005

Nanotechnology Depends on Intermolecular Contact

      

December 2004

Machine Implementation of Nanotechnology

      

January 2004

RAISING THE BAR ON WET END PERFORMANCE

      

December 2003

THE ACADEMIC CHEMISTRY DISCONNECT

      

Fall 2003

A Control Strategy to Maximize Cost Efficiency

      

May 2003

THE ‘SIX SIGMA’ QUALITY DOCTRINE

      

January 2003

THOROUGHNESS OF MIXING QUANTIFIED

      

Winter 2002

PAPERMAKING CHEMISTRY in the 21st CENTURY

      

Fall 2002

UNFORCED CHEMISTRY ERRORS IN PAPERMAKING
Papermaking Chemistry is 40% Efficient

      

Summer 2002

MAXIMIZE RETENTION, DRAINAGE, STRENGTH AND PRINTABILITY
Use the Most Cost-Efficient Chemistry in the Most Effective Way
 

      

      

1998 - 2001 Newsletter Index

      

Links to Web Sites

      



 


January 2010 Newsletter


Eureka Moments!!!


An Historic Malfunction



John Penniman

John Penniman


Editor’s Note:  A Post Script has been added to the following Newsletter.  Read through to its entirety to learn about a projected nano saving of about $40,000,000/year by a kraft producer.   JGP


Introduction

About three decades ago, circa 1980, I was invited by Dr. Roger Campbell to help improve the wet end chemistry at Norpac.  A joint venture of Weyerhaeuser and Jujo Paper, based in Longview, WA, it produces newsprint shipped solely to Jujo for re-sale in Japan.

There was a preliminary conference with Roger and plant management to discuss the issues, following which I settled my young chemist into the mill lab with a zeta potential instrument and a series of assignments.  Then I started on a tour of the mill to ascertain what was really going on.

Norpac at the time was a modern new mill with two enormous newsprint machines.  One of the machine superintendents intercepted me on the mill floor to recount a tale.  Shortly after start-up the felt cleaning apparatus malfunctioned.  Instead of applying kerosene emulsion to the felt for cleaning purposes, raw kerosene was used.  “The first section dryer steam pressure dropped by half.”  That was obviously not the plan so it was corrected as soon as possible and normal production resumed.

Curiously, the historic malfunction has been duplicated.  Several years later, during a trial of a silicone defoamer dispersed in hydrocarbon, an excess was accidentally used on a coated board machine in Temiscaming, Quebec.  Denis LaFrenier reported a drop in first dryer section steam pressure.


Process Development

Shortly after returning to the home lab, curiosity got the better of me and we started doing experiments with a hydrocarbon to try and duplicate the historic malfunction.  We soon had promising results.  I enlisted the services of a petroleum producer to identify a superior hydrocarbon, did a great deal more lab work, and started a long series of pilot plant trials.

After several years the petroleum producer became intrigued and offered to sponsor a trial at a well known university pilot plant.  Two bright, young, highly motivated PhDs were sent up from Texas to ensure perfection.  The pilot plant evaluation went forward despite the PhDs being advised the felts were filled with pigment and were non-functional.  The trial was a failure, and the petroleum firm withdrew its support.


EUREKA MOMENTS!!!!!!!!

Undaunted, I retained the Montreal PAPRICAN pilot plant for a day and obtained affirmative results.  There was a small, but clearly significant improvement.  This was the FIRST EUREKA MOMENT!!!!!!!!

Next, I used a variable speed pilot plant operated by the Albany International felt company.  The results showed that the faster the pilot plant operated, in the presence of a selected hydrocarbon, the more water was removed.  This was attributed to a reduction in post-nip re-wetting, and was quite large, the equivalent of a 20% saving in dryer energy.  THIS WAS THE SECOND EUREKA MOMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Back in the home lab, we turned to studying the wet end chemistry.  I employed a Russian professor who worked for over six years as a bench chemist, doing more than 5000 experiments; developed a lab instrument which measures an assortment of chemistry metrics and prints them out every 83 seconds as a permanent record; developed the Mk V Dynamic Hand-Sheet Mold, which faithfully reflects wet end chemistry, unlike conventional molds; and purchased an SPSS software program which quantifies the correlation between various metrics.
 
After many months effort we were able to demonstrate a result of profound scientific and philosophical significance:  both the process AND the physical property metrics are SIMULTANEOUSLY maximized when wet end chemistry is optimized.  THIS WAS THE THIRD EUREKA MOMENT!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Still seeking perfection, we plowed along day by day into the area of nanoscience.  We knew we had arrived when we were able to increase filler content and simultaneously (but counter-intuitively) increase strength properties.  THIS WAS OUR FOURTH EUREKA MOMENT!!!!!


What Is Going On?

The explanation is a bit complex.  We disperse the particulates to individual particles rather than flocs, and disperse the chemicals on a molecular scale rather than leave them as aggregates.  Further, we neutralize the inherently repulsive electrostatic charge so that the particles may approach closely together.  Finally, we adhere rigorously to charge-neutralization and refrain from macroflocculation, the global conventional wisdom.  Since patent applications are involved, the detailed explanation is far more complicated.

Macroflocculation is effective in enhancing retention and drainage, but has a number of adverse side-effects.  It prevents the particles from approaching closely together; creates inferior formation; strength properties are significantly reduced and sheet smoothness is impaired.


Conclusions

Papermaking nanotechnology produces a thinner, stronger, perfectly formed sheet using 90-99% less chemicals and 50% less energy.  It has excellent runnability, maximum productivity and impeccable quality.  The nano process should properly be produced on a machine designed for the purpose, of half the size and 4X more cost-effective. 

A tsunami of papermaking nanotechnology is about to engulf the industry.


John Penniman


Post Script:  December 9, 2009


The Fifth EUREKA!!! Moment just occurred.  I talked on the phone with a sophisticated gentleman who owns two huge kraft mills, and he expressed concern about the risk of being a pioneer for a new process.

I first suggested that he seek advice from a paper scientist, and mentioned several possibilities, all of whom chair academic departments. 

Next, I explained that the wet end nano process was separate and distinct from the dry end, in fact referred him to this ‘EUREKA’ Newsletter.  I suggested it might be easier and more productive to consider the processes separately, and try the dry end first.  I pointed out that it was so straightforward, it had happened twice by accident!

Then I asked how much he spent annually on fuel, and he replied that including co-generation he spent $80,000,000/year.

My response was that we could reduce his fuel bill by about $40,000,000 a year.  The demonstration would be simple and straightforward, although the initial effort would be purely qualitative, only intended to show a big change from normal.

JGP 

john-penniman@papermaking-chemistry.com

papermaking-chemistry.com




 

 

Copyright © Papermaking-Chemistry.Com 1998-2010