FW: Re: micro film making
This is resurected from a discussion 2 yr ago.
Chilling the microfilm solution results in a good pour w/o thinning. Less thinner means less pinholing and less shrinkage.
The flexiframe simplified lifting, resulting in higher yield.
Enjoy,
H
To: indoor_construction_at_yahoogroups.com
From: hermanna_at_hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 07:54:32 +0000
Subject: RE: [Indoor_Construction] Re: micro film making
Back in the last century I ran some microfilm experiments, reported in NFFS SYMPO 1999. Basically (Certified) Non-tautening nitrate was used & worked fine. Later non-tautening butyrate also did well. Acrylic lacquer was a complete disaster (seperated into islands).
Older water worked better. Liquid was in a squeeze (mustard/ketchup) bottle & stored in freezer (0F) til dispensed.
Lifting was with flexiframe, basically 2 yardstick sized wooden sticks front & back w/produce bags at the tips (tho sticks extended beyond for handling & hanging). Advantages are easy lifting as film comes off water vertically w/low stress. Also allows film to shrink during cure & greatly simplifies slackening, which is just a matter of adjusting stick spacing for covering. Water more than adequate for adhesion frame to film for lifting due to low stress.
For pure silver film, check out Stan Chilton & Steve Brown for gold, and track down some Rodemsky solution. For the rest of us, non-tautening is available from quarts to 55gal drums.
I never understood Charlie Sotich & Bob DeBatty prefering microfilm over plastic, but the film is already on the frame & saliva or water can be used as adhesive to airframe. With this in mind I laminated 2 sheets (lift one, pour 2nd, place 1st on top & lift) for industrial strength. After curing it was hard to tell as no bubbles etc.
Have fun,
H
>
>
>
Received on Wed Aug 01 2012 - 01:34:36 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:47 CET