|
The undersigned spent
technically successful careers in two other industries prior to
stumbling into paper. Several difficult and puzzling decades have
been devoted to learning what the paper industry is all about.
The practical issue is
that chemistry management has ignored the great significance of
bringing its focus to a molecular scale. Properly done, this
action magnifies chemistry effectiveness by one to two orders of
magnitude.
The conventional
papermaking process is fatally flawed. Our process development
work in papermaking nanotechnology shows chemistry efficiency of
the conventional process is less than 10%; energy efficiency
approximates only 50%. These and other inefficiencies
combine to virtually double the effective cost of a new machine.
Process
cleanliness is unacceptable. It is ridiculous in the 21st century
to contemplate shutting down the machine periodically for a “boil
out”. It should be designed and operated to run antiseptically
clean, forever, barring only mechanical break-down and infrequent
clothing replacement. The energy required to achieve molecular
homogeneity and chemistry efficiency should also be employed to destroy
microbes.
The technical issues are easy to understand. The philosophical
problem is that the industry fails to designate a single individual
with appropriate competence to integrate and manage the disciplines of
both engineering and chemistry.
The dedicated chemical technical representative is primarily devoted to
making a profit for her employer. All else is secondary.
This is clearly not the best way to align the disparate disciplines of
engineering and chemistry.
Nanotechnology requires invoking delicately balanced physical and
chemical forces to accomplish particulate dispersion down to a
molecular size, and scaling for maximum efficiency on a large,
expensive machine. The ultimate in synchronization of chemistry
and engineering is essential.
It is simply foolhardy to contemplate that such a task could be
accomplished by technologists serving multiple masters. It
represents Babel, déjà vu.
Unfortunately, we do not start off with a level playing field.
Systemic failure to understand the significant inter-meshing of
chemistry and engineering have led to processes such as common white
water systems and multiple head boxes on a single machine. They
create a level of non-homogeneity that leads to runnability issues,
breaks and poor quality. Creating stock homogeneity on a
molecular scale would flatten the field.
Lacking global perspective, decisions are parochial and self-serving:
• Symptomatic of the problem is that, when we plan a
conference on nanotechnology, it is scheduled in remote Canada, rather
than Boston.
• Another symptom is that, when a major machinery
supplier is asked to quote on a newsprint machine with reduced white
water system, it arrogantly declines, because it cannot then
“guarantee” performance.
• A further symptom is that the cationic demand
technology in global use to control the wet end is not reproducible,
manifesting the low correlation coefficient of 0.17 with zeta
potential. Even if it were repeatable, a residual charge is
undesirable; we need neutrality.
My mentor in paper engineering tends to get miffed when I bring up the
subject of doughnuts. He is truly a paragon of integrity and
deeply antipathetic to the minor bribery implications of doughnut
gifts. On the other hand, he has been given a small inventory of
malt whiskey. In developed countries, gifting is not usually
considered appropriate.
We shall continue to endure gross inefficiencies until the chemistry
and physics of papermaking are unified and fully integrated.
Papermaking nanotechnology is new and evolving. Let us bring our
engineers, chemists and information technology people together to
collaborate in the development and implementation so that, forever
after, papermaking will represent the best efforts of many disciplines,
truly a new paradigm.
John Penniman
Available via Skype by appointment
www.papermaking-chemistry.com
|
PAPER
CHEMISTRY LABORATORY, INC.