Talk:Paper machine

Need new paper machine outline drawing

This drawing is missing the wire turning roll and the dandy roll is mis-labeled. The press section is an old style. There are not enough dryers. The calender rolls are not in a "stack", as is normal practice.Phmoreno (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Notes on October 5-8, 2010 updates

I did an extensive revision of most of this article based on my experience in the industry. I have not been active in the industry for several years, so the material may be dated. Also it has been quite a while since I attended the TAPPI courses on which my revision was based. Anyone having better information is welcome to make revisions.

The Technical Association for the Pulp and Paper Industry is the best source of information on this topic. Suppliers to the industry are also good sources, and they contribute their knowledge to TAPPI. I believe all of this information is availible on CD or DVD, at a charge that only businesses can probably afford.Phmoreno (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fourdrinier machine

As I am a complete beginner at this extraordinary site, please forgive infelicitous format, etc.

I completely agree that the excision of dandy roll, couch etc is in correct and unhelpful. These terms are still in use today. The dandy roll puts the water mark on the paper and was patented for this purpose in 1839 (Joynson). Its original use had been to produce a finish more like hand made paper. The couch roll is a key item on the machine as it is here that the web is gripped for removal from the wire and transmission to the next section. Couch moreover, being derived from the French "coucher", to lay down, reminds us that until the invention of the machine in principal by Louis Robert in the midst of the French Revolution, paper was hand made and laid on the post (pile of wet sheets ready for pressing, by the "coucheur" or in English. the coucher. The machine is called Fourdrinier after the two brothers of that name who financed its development in England after various shinannigins whereby the design and sample paper was taken to England. Athough preceded by developmental patents, the key patent is 3068 of 1807 to Fourdriniers and Gamble. Bryan Donkin was the key engineer in the development. The first commercial machine, crude as it was, was installed at Frogmore, Hertfordshire in 1804 and this was followed by another experiment and then a better version at Two Waters nearby in 1805. This machine cost £4204.

This early machine made paper was of course rag based. Wood came along much later.

The reference to aligning the fibres is I think also incorrect. The whole point about paper is that the fibres are NOT aligned.

At least the comment in a local history article in Somerset England that the "four Drinier brothers" were involved has been avoided

BGL

it is spelled calender I changed it

It is spelled Calender, not Calendar. One is a papermaking piece of equipment, the other tells you what day it is. ;)

Function of the slice

i have edited out one gross error from the "Wet end" section (not that I'm at all happy with the rest!). The slice does NOT regulate the mass per square meter ("grammage") of the paper. This is done earlier in the approach flow to the machine, by controlling the consistency (% solids content) and rate of flow of stock. The slice only controls the volume of flow onto the wire, which is governed by the volume of dilution water picked up at the fan pump. As regards fibre alignment: the fibres in machine-made papers are, in fact (owing to the motion of stock and wire), aligned to some degree, with a preponderance of fibres aligned toward the machine direction. This affects the properties of paper, which are quite different in the two directions ( called "machine direction" and cross-machine direction"): the paper is said to be "anisotropic". In hand-made papers, the directional distribution of fibres is random; the properties of the paper (Tearing resistance, tensile strength) are the same in whatever direction they are measured. Hand-made papers are said to be "isotropic".

lionello

Press Update

Guys;

I just made some massive changes to press. I hope that it meets everyones approval.

I like the way this page is done, but I was thinking maybe we should "dumb down" or get better links on other pages to bring people here, like on that papermaking page that has absolutely nothing to do with modern papermaking.

I would also like to introduce different formers (inverform, belbond, duoformers, mini-fourdriniers) that relate to standard fourdriniers. Not sure how to handle non-fourdrinier former types, but they need access somehow to calenders, dryers, and press without having to refer to fourdriniers.

Thoughts? Shoud we sectionalise the fourdrinier machine page?

Thanks;

Anthony

Removing Charles Kinsey

After reading several 19th century books on paper-making history, in particular, the Fourdrinier Paper-Making Machine from Paper Manufacturing in the United States, 1916, , I find nothing to support the claim that Charles Kinsey had any significant contribution in the development of the Fourdrinier paper-making machine. In fact, Fourdriner's British patent of July 1806 pre-dates by almost a year Kinsey's US patent of May 1807. Further, the books I have read give credit to Louis Robert in France.

Therefore, until someone more knowledgeable than I can furnish references to support returning it, I am removing the following paragraph:

"Invented by Charles Kinsey of Paterson, New Jersey with foreign patents secured in 1807 and 1808, the "wooden man" as it was called (owing to the prototype being made entirely from wood), became the Fourdrinier Machine after Kinsey's rights were conveyed to Messrs. H. and F. Fourdrinier of France, who improved on its design."

This paragraph of information appears to come from a web page on ancestry which is in error when referring to "H. and F." Fourdriner, since Henry collaborated with his brother Sealy. So who is "F" ?

IGE

Images

I added some images that I found on Wikimedia today. They're 1. not all from the same place (though the Florida resource that was kind enough to upload two of them has more images), 2. black and white, and 3. not a 'perfect fit' ... but they're what's available.

It'd be great if someone could diagram the process. It's complicated and an overview graphic would help a lot. Twang (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Added a diagram and removed the reqdiagram tag. I drew on a number of illustration on the 'net, but like all these things, every picture shows a slightly different machine. Hope this is correct. Egmason (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Citations

A reference is only good if someone can retreive the document using it. A proper citation might read something like "Section V of course notes on "Care and feeding of wumpuses", presented at a seminar by Professor Hoople, Miskatonic University, (Erewhon campus), October 13-21, 1998 " At least then the hapless reader has a chance of finding out where you obtained the occult insider knowledge that you've emitted into the article. Saying someone-or-other offerd a course is no good at all. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The references are labeled as appropriate for the sources, which are the paper industry's technical association. They do not have ISBNs, etc. and have multiple authors, which can be seen for some of the publications by looking at the links. They are not available in most libraries; however, there are a handufull of pulp and paper schools around the world that may have a few of them. One you might try is the library of Institute of Paper Science and Technology at Georgia Tech.

In the case of Paper machine, the material is so specialized that the industry technical associations and trade magazines are practically the only ones who publish. There are a few textbooks for the handful of schools around the world that teach paper science, but I am not aware of any particular texts that are as good as the TAPPI publications for this particular subject. Perhaps someone can add a few as citations.Phmoreno (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're someone. You're the one offering these occult documents as references. You're the subject-matter expert, self-described. It would be nice if you would tell us which documents you have in mind. There's no copyright page? Edition number? No editor? Publication number? A stock number? Catalog number? Surely there's something you tell whoever answers the phone at the Pulp and Paper Industry Publications Department and Gift Shop to identify which 3-ring binder of wisdom you are trying to purchase? There's got to be a date - what's true of pulp and paper in 1911 may no longer be true in 2011 or even 1961. Open the binder, look for the copyright page, tell us what's written there! This is NOT hard. It's an industry, not the secrets of Scientology or Freemasonry - surely there's sources that can be cited. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In my previous post I suggested you click on the links in the references and most will take you to the page in the TAPPI catalog with the material cited. I will be adding some more citations with links in the future.Phmoreno (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just don't get it. After all the complaining about where to find the material I finally directed the reader to it then you undid the links. And no, it is not SPAM! This is the industry's technical association and they don't particularly care if you buy the information or not. It is a nonprofit technical organization! People link other books to Amzaon, etc. on Wikipedia all the time. This is no different.Phmoreno (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Headbox

This is little more than a definition of a small part of a machine Derek Andrews (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. Though we do love parts lists on the WP. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support The headbox article is a stem and by itself a headbox does not merit an article. It's far too specialized for anything other than a paper technology text.Phmoreno (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

degree of automatisation ?

I would like to know figures like "production of 1 ton of paper needs 2 hours of work (production workers). --Präziser (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge, silent consensus. Alan Islas (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Ultrasonic foil (papermaking) into Paper machine. Ultrasonic foil (papermaking) is currently a stub with one a dead link as reference. I don't think it merits its own article and the content could be integrated here. Alan Islas (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion of sheeting section after winding

I will soon add a sheeting section as important part of paper process. Here only winding is given in brief but not other mentions. Anubhavmpm (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)