CBCA Sponsors Scientific Testing on the Effects of Pressing

[Theagenes]

Just from a quick take on the problem, having books tested for the effects of 'pressing' because pressing may adversely affect the paper is an improper hypothesis that confounds the effects of multiple sources into one general category of 'pressing.' Pressing may consist of multiple steps, each one of which has to be tested separately. The affects of long-term storage, humidity, heat, compaction, and paper quality, both immediately and over time, all must be evaluated independently in order to determine if any or all of them can adversely affect the paper.

 

I really recommend that you take the time to consult with a statistician about what you are trying to do and get him/her to prepare an experimental design that can be tested using traditional statistics and arrive at a result that can then be independently tested by someone else. All you are going to do is generate data that can't be duplicated and will only contribute to the pointless arguments that abound on pressing. If folks are passionate about the issue, then look for donations. Testing just one or two books at a time with weeks or months in between is not going to give you supportable answers.

 

The idea behind this test has been discussed here in the resto forum for years by Kenny, Scott, and others. All of these issues are valid concerns, and have been brought up many times. I am open to suggestions about how we can track the exact storage conditions of a book for the last 60 or 70 years. The way we attempted to mitigate that was to select books that appearred to have uniform paper quality, then cut them in half. We made the reasonable assumption that both halves of the book underwent the same storage conditions. We then pressed one half, leaving the other half unpressed as a control. Both halves were then tested and the results compared. There were multiple tests done on the pages as long as there was material left to test.

 

We were very aware of the limitations, but this is something that people have been talking about doing for years and no body had done it. We decided it was time to start somewhere even if it was very limited. It's a start, that's all. You're right, it isn't perfect, and we are absolutely open to suggestions. If you would like to get involved we would love to have your expertise, seriously.

[Weird Paper]

I'm glad you guys are doing this, Jeff. I've long wondered if the rapid temperature changes newsprint undergoes during the pressing process has a long-term effect on the acidity of the paper. It seems like it should, so I would think the real question would be whether the change was severe enough to accelerate aging in the paper.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Just from a quick take on the problem, having books tested for the effects of 'pressing' because pressing may adversely affect the paper is an improper hypothesis that confounds the effects of multiple sources into one general category of 'pressing.' Pressing may consist of multiple steps, each one of which has to be tested separately. The affects of long-term storage, humidity, heat, compaction, and paper quality, both immediately and over time, all must be evaluated independently in order to determine if any or all of them can adversely affect the paper.

 

I really recommend that you take the time to consult with a statistician about what you are trying to do and get him/her to prepare an experimental design that can be tested using traditional statistics and arrive at a result that can then be independently tested by someone else. All you are going to do is generate data that can't be duplicated and will only contribute to the pointless arguments that abound on pressing. If folks are passionate about the issue, then look for donations. Testing just one or two books at a time with weeks or months in between is not going to give you supportable answers.

 

I think BCW Supplies is available for consultation....,

 

Somehow, I don't think they know much about experimental statistics.

I'm sure they would argue that point...., whether they are right or wrong.

 

 

I am glad someone is getting something out of that thread, because it was driving me nuts.

 

In this one, I agree with fantastic four's hypothesis that the margin of error is going to be too large to note any significant differences between the samples. I am not certain that differences in tensile strength and tear resistance are going to correlate with pressed and unpressed books. Intuitively, the fold endurance test seems much more relevant.

[cheetah]

Just from a quick take on the problem, having books tested for the effects of 'pressing' because pressing may adversely affect the paper is an improper hypothesis that confounds the effects of multiple sources into one general category of 'pressing.' Pressing may consist of multiple steps, each one of which has to be tested separately. The affects of long-term storage, humidity, heat, compaction, and paper quality, both immediately and over time, all must be evaluated independently in order to determine if any or all of them can adversely affect the paper.

 

I really recommend that you take the time to consult with a statistician about what you are trying to do and get him/her to prepare an experimental design that can be tested using traditional statistics and arrive at a result that can then be independently tested by someone else. All you are going to do is generate data that can't be duplicated and will only contribute to the pointless arguments that abound on pressing. If folks are passionate about the issue, then look for donations. Testing just one or two books at a time with weeks or months in between is not going to give you supportable answers.

 

The idea behind this test has been discussed here in the resto forum for years by Kenny, Scott, and others. All of these issues are valid concerns, and have been brought up many times. I am open to suggestions about how we can track the exact storage conditions of a book for the last 60 or 70 years. The way we attempted to mitigate that was to select books that appearred to have uniform paper quality, then cut them in half. We made the reasonable assumption that both halves of the book underwent the same storage conditions. We then pressed one half, leaving the other half unpressed as a control. Both halves were then tested and the results compared. There were multiple tests done on the pages as long as there was material left to test.

 

We were very aware of the limitations, but this is something that people have been talking about doing for years and no body had done it. We decided it was time to start somewhere even if it was very limited. It's a start, that's all. You're right, it isn't perfect, and we are absolutely open to suggestions. If you would like to get involved we would love to have your expertise, seriously.

 

All I am saying is do it right the first time. Submit all your books for testing in a single batch. Submit enough books for testing that you can account for variability between books. Control for humidity. Control for pressure. Control for heat. Any variability in these factors will void your results and you'll be left out of pocket for junk data that won't settle anything. It is an emotional enough issue without having meaningless results that will be pounced upon by advocates of either position.

[cheetah]

Here is an experimental design that would minimize varaibility in your testing and make your results more significant.

 

1. Get a warehouse find of at least 50 books of a single issue that has been stored together since they were printed. This will minimize variability in paper quality.

 

2. Take the stack of books, discard the top 25 percent and the bottom 25 percent to account for variability in storage effects.

 

3. Cut the books in half horizontally to make sure a fold is present in your sample since some have hypothesized that the fold is where the most damage will occur.

 

3. Alternate the the book pieces between books that will be

pressed only

heated only

humidified only

heated and pressed but not humidified

humidified and heated but not pressed

humidified and pressed but not heated

not be pressed, humidified or heated

 

It would be best if each book were cut into seven equal pieces with each book being treated in each of the seven manners. I'm guessing that this wouldn't leave enough paper to test, though.

 

5. Do your testing.

 

6. Set aside half your sample for testing 10 years from now.

 

7. Test the remaining samples and evaluate the results for each individual factor and for each combination of factors.

 

8. Now go back and redo the work but vary the heat, humidity or pressure (but only one variable per test batch, control the other variables) and re-evaluate your results.

 

9. In 10 years, go back and do the identical tests on the batches you set aside.

 

This will make for a design that eliminates confounding of variables and would provide data in a fashion that would determine not only if pressing affects the paper, but what factor/factors might have the most deleterious impact.

[MCJ]

Cheetah's given sage experimental design advice. Hopefully a nice warehouse find will materialize to accommodate it...

[VintageComics]

Showoff. I'm starting a thread about you.

 

 

[Moondog]

Just from a quick take on the problem, having books tested for the effects of 'pressing' because pressing may adversely affect the paper is an improper hypothesis that confounds the effects of multiple sources into one general category of 'pressing.' Pressing may consist of multiple steps, each one of which has to be tested separately. The affects of long-term storage, humidity, heat, compaction, and paper quality, both immediately and over time, all must be evaluated independently in order to determine if any or all of them can adversely affect the paper.

 

I really recommend that you take the time to consult with a statistician about what you are trying to do and get him/her to prepare an experimental design that can be tested using traditional statistics and arrive at a result that can then be independently tested by someone else. All you are going to do is generate data that can't be duplicated and will only contribute to the pointless arguments that abound on pressing. If folks are passionate about the issue, then look for donations. Testing just one or two books at a time with weeks or months in between is not going to give you supportable answers.

 

This is where I stalled. There were just too many factors to take into consideration when I did this independently of the NOD (prior to CBCA). It was simply too expensive for me to continue in the direction necessary to get valid results.

 

I applaud CBCA for taking this step though and hope that it leads to more testing. (thumbs u

 

 

[cheetah]

In retrospect, 50 books is probably way too few.

[comicdonna]

Just from a quick take on the problem, having books tested for the effects of 'pressing' because pressing may adversely affect the paper is an improper hypothesis that confounds the effects of multiple sources into one general category of 'pressing.' Pressing may consist of multiple steps, each one of which has to be tested separately. The affects of long-term storage, humidity, heat, compaction, and paper quality, both immediately and over time, all must be evaluated independently in order to determine if any or all of them can adversely affect the paper.

 

I really recommend that you take the time to consult with a statistician about what you are trying to do and get him/her to prepare an experimental design that can be tested using traditional statistics and arrive at a result that can then be independently tested by someone else. All you are going to do is generate data that can't be duplicated and will only contribute to the pointless arguments that abound on pressing. If folks are passionate about the issue, then look for donations. Testing just one or two books at a time with weeks or months in between is not going to give you supportable answers.

 

This is where I stalled. There were just too many factors to take into consideration when I did this independently of the NOD (prior to CBCA). It was simply too expensive for me to continue in the direction necessary to get valid results.

 

I applaud CBCA for taking this step though and hope that it leads to more testing. (thumbs u

 

Same here, Gary. That's why I introduced the idea to the CBCA.

[comix4fun]

In retrospect, 50 books is probably way too few.

 

 

I was just thinking that...by the time you get to reserving piles for later study there are only a handful left.

 

There are sealed cases of Thunder Agents out there that can be had for under $100. Test subjects abound.

[seanfingh]

In retrospect, 50 books is probably way too few.

 

 

I was just thinking that...by the time you get to reserving piles for later study there are only a handful left.

 

There are sealed cases of Thunder Agents out there that can be had for under $100. Test subjects abound.

 

You are talking about those Heroes, Inc. cases, cowboy. And those are perfect test subjects. Carbonaro will probably donate a couple for a sixer of domestic beer.

[MrBedrock]

To add a concern...

Any person who receives half a comic to press will automatically know it is an experiment. Therefore, going into the experiment the person doing the pressing will have a natural bias towards the process and can control its outcome. If he/she is trying to prove damage then the cookies can be left in the oven too long. If he/she is trying to disprove damage then the dough can stay a little raw.

[comix4fun]

In retrospect, 50 books is probably way too few.

 

 

I was just thinking that...by the time you get to reserving piles for later study there are only a handful left.

 

There are sealed cases of Thunder Agents out there that can be had for under $100. Test subjects abound.

 

You are talking about those Heroes, Inc. cases, cowboy. And those are perfect test subjects. Carbonaro will probably donate a couple for a sixer of domestic beer.

 

 

Yeah, sorry. That's what I meant.

[HighRadArt]

. The test results aren't even out yet and the next test group is nearly in the oven (or press).

[Theagenes]

To add a concern...

Any person who receives half a comic to press will automatically know it is an experiment. Therefore, going into the experiment the person doing the pressing will have a natural bias towards the process and can control its outcome. If he/she is trying to prove damage then the cookies can be left in the oven too long. If he/she is trying to disprove damage then the dough can stay a little raw.

 

Richard, that is certainly a concern. I personally have no doubts as to the integrity of the person performing the pressing, but to ease anyone else's doubts let me say this. Since the person doing the pressing is a professional, one would expect that if there is any bias it would be toward easing up to show that pressing is not harmful. The books that were chosen all exhibit very visible flaws that a) indicate they had not been previously pressed and b) show there is no doubt in the "after" pics that they were sufficiently pressed for this test.

[DrWatson]

What would be the scientific definition of "sufficiently pressed?"

[comicdonna]

To add a concern...

Any person who receives half a comic to press will automatically know it is an experiment. Therefore, going into the experiment the person doing the pressing will have a natural bias towards the process and can control its outcome. If he/she is trying to prove damage then the cookies can be left in the oven too long. If he/she is trying to disprove damage then the dough can stay a little raw.

I examined both the pressed and unpressed samples berfore I sent them in. The person who pressed them did a fantastic job. This person knew the books would be sent in for testing. This person also supplied the exact process that was used to press the samples. It was very nice of the presser to participate in this experiment.

[DrWatson]

The person who pressed them did a fantastic job. This person knew the books would be sent in for testing. This person also supplied the exact process that was used to press the samples. It was very nice of the presser to participate in this experiment.

Ah, this certainly narrows down the field of candidates.

[Pirate]

cool we will get to read the process. Always wondered how it worked.