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
|
|
|
