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
www.papermaking-nanochemistry.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/Dynamic Paper Chemistry Jars®
& 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

September 2010 Newsletter

Three Major Papermaking Errors Prevail

John Penniman

John Penniman

Introduction

The author has published many articles on building nanochemistry wet end processes. This piece over-views correcting three major errors by making nanochemistry modification to the existing process. We can do this for you.

Unfortunately, the adoption of wet end chemistry in mid 20th century was abrupt. Suppliers with success in the chemical pre-treatment of potable water offered their bag of tricks to paper mill superintendents, who gave it a try, often with improved results in retention and drainage.

The die was cast, and paper is unique amongst global industries to fully entrust a critical operational role to an independent party with directly conflicting interests. The resultant embedded inefficiencies are removable.

Mixing

The industry fails to mix chemicals and stock with water to homogeneity.

An enterprising Finnish Company, Wet End Technologies, introduced the TrumpJet booster pump in 2003. It has shipped about 300 units and reasonably claims to reduce chemical usage by 20-50%. www.wetend.com

This contrasts with the author’s nanochemistry data which shows a reduction of 90-99% in chemical usage. The difference is that in nanochemistry we use sophisticated technology which reduces chemical bundles to molecules.

Electrostatic Charge Neutralization

Colloidal particles typically carry an electrostatic charge, or zeta potential, measured in millivolts. The particulate zeta potential has a critically important influence on the stability of the colloid. In papermaking we must neutralize that opposing charges so that the final zeta potential is zero.

To the extent we fail to do this, both physical properties and process performance are impaired. When we consistently attain a final net charge of zero zeta potential, both are maximized.

Counter-Productive Agitation

When we mix to homogeneity and neutralize the repulsive charge, van der Waals’ Force asserts itself to bring all the colloidal particles together. The Force exerts itself with a power that increases exponentially, inversely with inter-particulate distance.

Because the modern paper machine does NOT mix to homogeneity on the wet end, the effort is pursued in the headbox and by shaking the wire. This works against van der Waals Force and is counter-productive to nanochemistry. http://www.papermaking-chemistry.com/max_waals_force.ppt

What is needed after the particles are mixed to homogeneity and charge-neutralized is quiescence so that the naturally attractive Force can bring them together. At this juncture, the less agitation the better!

Mea Culpa

If you were paying close attention to page 10 of the exhibit, it purports to show that process and physical properties are optimized at a low positive zeta potential. This is contrary on its face to our claim that zero zeta potential is optimum.

In case you wondered about the discrepancy, it results from what I have termed “cationic decay”, or the drift of the stock towards a less positive zeta potential with time. It represents the unbundling of the cationic chemicals which, in our early experiments, were not mixed homogeneously.

I must say this has been a difficult row to hoe. Cationic demand measurement has been globally adopted, DESPITE THAT FACT THAT THE MEASUREMENT IS NOT REPEATABLE. "Stay tuned."

John G. Penniman
www.papermaking-chemistry.com

Copyright © Papermaking-Chemistry.Com 1998-2010