with "LGMI Frontiers" in the subject line.
------
We had some feedback on last week's topic:
Jim,
As usual, a great thought provoking article. Tweaking vs innovation will always be a competitive "game" as we challenge the innovators to "get out of the box" but still want them to start by making sure they are aware of what is already known so they do not reinvent.
As I read your comment, I just couldn't stop thinking about a TAPPI article many years ago that showed a tree and listed some of the many products that could be produced with this solar powered, renewable resource. Today the list could probably be expanded 10 fold.
Just hope that the "green machine" can produce more than just bales and rolls of conventional pulp and paper (and 2 x 4's), otherwise we could end up just tweaking. Assuming they consume many similar nutrients from nature, the challenge could be framed as the hornet vs the silkworm.
All the best,
Bob Eamer
Jim,
You wrote:
"For instance, it would be an interesting exercise to take a group of classically trained engineers and scientists with no pulp and paper industry experience and ask them to take a tree and make it into paper, without the benefit of any prior knowledge."
WHY TREES???
Mark Lewis
EDITOR'S REPLY: I guess we could try paper clips, but I think they would be awfully expensive.
-------
And some feedback on the topic from
the week before that:
Jim,
You are on the right track. I dream of a paper machine that could make a grade change in 5 minutes or less-not by smearing specs so that the grades over-lap, but by fast response of the machine's systems.
What would that mean? Most significantly it would mean reduction of wet end volume from 1000's of gallons to an almost 'straight-through' system which would mean outstanding mixing and on-line process monitoring and control. This concept is totally in-line with other LGMI concepts of a small, light, nimble, high-efficiency paper production system.
Getting rid of the headbox should be an integral part of that. One should start by defining the purpose of the headbox such as "To properly (?) align fibers and distribute them evenly across the wire" Experts could embellish this.
Like you, if a group of NASA engineers (and several are available) were engaged to design a system to accomplish this, I seriously doubt that we would recognize it as a 'headbox'. Further, suppose they were able to design a system that could do that at 3-5% consistency rather than 0.1%; what would that do to the design of the machine. That would be totally consistent with my goal of a short dwell-time wet end and fast grade changes.
The sad part is that our industry experts typically refine the design rather than replace the concept; we have very few 'paradigm-busters' among us.
Ed Turner