7 YEAR MICRO-CHAMBER TUNE-UP?

[Aman619]

me too. I was thinking I was really smart for saying mylars are inert!

Invented by NASA! Just Imagine!

[Bugaboo-migration]

[Mister_Comics]

One thing I've noticed with LIFE X-TENDERS, after many years they look like they absorb something from the comic and look stained. Almost like a oil stain. I wonder if this happens with MICROCHAMBER paper? It could be the reason why they suggest changing the paper after several years.

 

But I've also noticed an improvement of the comic paper. Seems to look a bit better. Is it possible that the paper improves the paper quality?

[fantastic_four]

But I've also noticed an improvement of the comic paper. Seems to look a bit better. Is it possible that the paper improves the paper quality?

Do you mean the better paper most Modern comics from 1990 or so are printed on? If that's what you mean, then yes...improved paper quality does result in improved paper quality.

[Mister_Comics]

Sorry for the confusion.

 

I use the LIFE X-TENDERS on all my comics. Golden to modern and have noticed an improvement of the comic pages closest to the LIFE X-TENDER. I think its more noticable with silver age and bronze age books. The pages look to be turning whiter slightly. A lighter shade of pale. There definitly is something going on with these LIFE X-TENDERS. I don't know if its good or bad, but something is being abrorbed by them.

 

If MICROCHAMBER paper is anything like the LIFE X-TENDERS that may be the reason to have them changed after seven years. Does MICRO CHAMBER paper have the same reaction? Does it absorb something from the comic book pages?

[OldGuy]

"The pages look to be turning whiter slightly."

 

I'd might believe that at best the pages close to the X-tender may be turning yellow at a slower rate then other pages. I don't believe that the X-tenders can actually reverse the aging process. That would be a huge step for mankind.

[Bugaboo-migration]

Yeah.....I don't think the "paper" in the life x-tenders is any different than their other archival backing boards. The difference is that it has a thin layer of "charcoal" sandwiched between two peices of archival backing boards which is supposed to absorb some of the harmful by-products of the papers natural deterioration. This way, these by-products can't work to speed up the deterioration of the paper. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[Aman619]

..and that charcoal was in fact invented by NASA...

[PovertyRow]

Hey! Look in Bronze!

[BronzeBruce13]

Update:

 

I followed up 2 more times with Bill from Conservation Resources International. He indictaed the first time (over a week ago) that he expected that his father already made a reply. Obviously no one has and my last email has not been answered yet.

 

I don't know if they are formulating a response or checked out the discussion and decided one was not necessary?

 

Anyway... just letting you all know I followed up. I want the answers as I know many of you do as well.

 

 

[blowout]

Glad you are on the case Bruce. Pardon the pun.

[PovertyRow]

Glad you are on the case Bruce.

 

[BronzeBruce13]

Bill Hollinger Jr. emailed me today informing me that his father (emailed or PM'd) Tracey Heft the following message. I'm posting it here as well. I'm not sure if Bill Sr. realized how to post.

 

Anyway... here's the skinny...

 

Hi Tracey,

 

My name is Bill Hollinger, and I am the inventor of the MicroChamber®

technology, and the CEO of Conservation Resources International, L.L.C. As

you may know, we manufacture chemicals, equipment, containers and housings

for archives, libraries and museums for the preservation of their

collections. Nielsen & Bainbridge also use this technology under license to

produce a series of products for the framing industry.

 

We received a phone call from a comic book collector last week (BB13), with

questions about the use of MicroChamber® papers which were raised on a comic

book forum - so, I appreciate your contacting us so we can answer these

concerns. I took a quick look at the site he made available to us, and I

think I can clear up some of the questions posted there.

 

The Hollinger Corp, as corrected in a later post, is not the manufacturer of

MicroChamber® products. Furthermore, they have never sold these products, so

they were hardly in a position to "discontinue" selling them.

 

As to the two statements: ( "... 7 year life-effectiveness of the paper" and

"no-one has tested the absorption capabilites of Microchamber papers",

the truth is an enormous amount of research and testing has been done, and

more is ongoing and I'm told will be published in the literature sometime

this summer. You can see some of this information, including detailed

capacities at:

www.conservationresources.com/distribution/MicroChamber_Technical_Info.shtml

 

I think the 7 year life estimate I see in the posts is pretty conservative,

and I will try to explain why. As I understand it, the comics in question are

sealed inside a relatively impermeable plastic; therefore the role of the

MicroChamber® paper in this instance is primarily to remove by-products of

deterioration from the comic book. The deteriorative by-products produced by

the comic book paper will be primarily organic acids (mostly acetic acid) and

a non-acetic (but pre-acetic compound), alhehyde. The MicroChamber® paper

will remove approximately 170 times more of this acid than a traditional

buffered paper will, and unlike the buffered-only paper, the MicroChamber®

paper will also remove aldehydes. Obviously their elimination prevents the

aldehydes from becoming organic acids and causing further damage to the comic

book. If the effective "life" of a MicroChamber® paper is 7 years, this

means an (equivalent size and weight) traditional alkaline archival

buffered-only paper will last only 15 days.

 

Lastly, I would like to address this statement attributed to the Hollinger

Corp's catalog: Well, from their own catalog, their statement says 'Merely

absorbing the gases is not sufficient because these systems can be reversed

thus re-emitting the dangerous gases now in higher concentrations."

 

I've never seen such a statement, but if it refers to our MicroChamber®

products, it is manifestly incorrect. The molecules removed are chemically

bonded within an aluminum crystalline cage inside a proprietary zeolite

specifically developed and engineered to perform the functions for which they

are used. The energy required to break these bonds is tremendous. The comic

would be burned to ashes while the aluminum silicate zeolite remained intact.

 

Hopefully I have been able to address the concerns expressed in the series of

posts on this subject.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Hollinger

CEO

[joe_collector]

Man, some of that testing data and photos are just too PT Barnum for me. In one case, a test shows Before and After photos, and the "non-MicroChamber" one shows a neat pile of paper scraps.

 

I for one, would love to know how that happened. It's like Crop Circles.

[BronzeBruce13]

That does sound a bit funny, like they were really driving home the point, but maybe there's a reason. I haven't checked it out yet... I'll take a look later.

 

I just took a look... unless you are an expert in that field, and know what happens to 34 year old paper when its intentionally exposed to the pollutant gas NO2... I think I'll lean towards their explanation for now. You may know markets, but I'm not following your skepticism on this one. It would be rather foolish for them to post a result that can't happen. I would think the experts in the field or their competition would jump all over it if it was a misrepresentation. With that said, more information on the gas, the level/amount used in the test, if it is a toxin that comic book pages would encounter are the questions I would want follow ups on if I wanted to find out the truth rather than voice a doubt based on a perceived humorous photo.

 

This may be like McDonald's showing a perfect Big Mac when they look like far less appetizing, (meaning the pile may have been adjusted for the shot) but I doubt the paper can't break apart like that. I had a couple really old comics given to me that were so brittle there were bunches of paper debris in the giant zip log bag. When I attempted to handle it and turn pages, I could barely do so without the thing falling apart further. I think if I would have dropped it flat on the ground... pieces would have went flying all about as if I slashed a pillow with feathers. If NO2, in the amount they exposed that already 34 year old paper to, approximates the level of decay I experienced with those books, I can believe it.

[joe_collector]

PT Barnum = the greatest showman the world's ever seen.

 

That's why I used that name in comparison to the neatly-stacked pieces of paper in the non-protected file folder. It would never happen in the real world, anymore than real insects work in a flea circus.

 

Or better yet, it takes a big page from all those "Before" and "After" shots from those weight-loss scams. One has a red-haired fat guy who's 5.6", and in the After pic, he's got blond hair, a moustache and stands 6"3".

[BronzeBruce13]

I understood... but I bet the paper did break apart before it was "neatly swept up" to make a point... that's all. That seems to be the important issue to me.

[fantastic_four]

I saw that document a few weeks ago when this post first started and couldn't figure that pile of brittle paper out either.

 

Did anyone notice the document say what test they ran that paper through? I know the Library of Congress' web site says they subjected Mylar to "advanced aging tests," and I was assuming the paper in that MicroChamber document may have been run through a similar test. What an "advanced aging test" involves, I have no idea.

[joe_collector]

>>I understood... but I bet the paper did break apart before it was "neatly swept up" to make a point... that's all

 

Sure, but it looks highly unprofessional, and puts the entire (supposedly "scientific") document into question.

 

Just show us the Before and After photos as they really happened, and not after some maniac crumpled the brittle paper up and then swept it into a neat pile.

[BronzeBruce13]

True enough... in terms of demonstrating a fair representation of the actual results. They should have at least qualified it with a statement describing why they made the apparent decision to "adjust" the NO2 exposed paper.

 

Why not call them and ask what's up?... its a fair question... and you raised it. It's probably the best way for you to get an answer instead of us just assuming and critiquing it.

 

I'm guessing you'll hear that they felt you couldn't see that the paper fiber broke apart and they chose to move it about to illustrate the degradation... not saying I agree without qualifying it in the presentation, but that's my best guess.

 

LMK what they say if you have the time to check into it. Maybe you can save me some time. I donated my fair share already and would welcome your assistance. Actually you could be quite effective in obtaining info on these types of endeavors because you are the often the first to raise good questions get to it.