phantomrebel
Serial Tapist
Actually, there is a method of restoring tape with weakened binder (even SSS) using a Naptha extract of Nu-Finish wax. So I'm curious what the evidence is that such solvents harm the tape media.
Rubber rejuvenation
- Thread starter Catmanboo
- Start date
Sarcasm on. Why don't you spray down your most precious old tape recording with PB Blaster, and find out? Sarcasm off.
More seriously, I have a family member who is a professional in the archival sciences and preservation fields, including at one time with the Library of Congress. She is always extremely troubled by website conversations like this one, because of the misinformation and incomplete information that gets tossed about, which ultimately impacts their job when new field works arrive for restoration, capture and preservation. Because some are severely damaged or destroyed by 'home-brew' treatments and other mishandling events. We actually discussed this conversation about soaking pinch rollers, and she was flabbergasted over the use of such chemicals as brake fluid and penetrating solvents anywhere near the tape media. As was I, as I have dealt with such tape for decades.
The prevailing field method to 'restore' a magnetic recording tape that is already suffering oxide shedding is to heat it under controlled conditions. Because the primary cause of the shedding is binder detachment from hydration. I was aware of this 'baking' method for a number of years. This restoration method is the only field method that does not necessarily damage the binder polymer with the existing oxide profile (the recording). Because of the sensitive nature of the tapes they handle, all the rest are done in the lab. The binder composition is roughly determined, but only to the extent that it can be successfully run through a machine once to capture a digital copy of the content. The master tapes are then sent to a climate controlled storage location for long-term archiving.
I am told that any further chemical treatment or procedure (particularly in an already degraded example) will almost always damage the original oxide composition, if not immediately, then over time. Because hydroscopic polymers and particularly ones containing various oxide formulae are inherently volatile and reactive in the face of many chemicals. I did not specifically discuss naptha with her. The conversation was in the context of preserving the original oxide magnetic signature (the data), and not necessarily the recoating of the binder with some additional oxides (which I am told is destructive to the original 'impression') for further use.
She's also aware of the growing shortage of operational machines to even play this media, and I'm told it is worsening in their field, and that good-running legacy machines for capture are increasingly valuable to them.
I'm no chemist or archival scientist, but that is the skinny on it. Bottom line: Don't unnecessarily expose the oxide-coated side of your tapes to unknown chemicals, unless you are absolutely sure of the interaction, or the recording could be damaged (either immediately or over time).
I already knew this as an enthusiast, and didn't need an archival scientist relative to tell me about it. We used a water-based cleaner in a pinch to clean dying rollers. But if you want to smear Nu-Finish on your tapes, go for it. I will not stop you.
More seriously, I have a family member who is a professional in the archival sciences and preservation fields, including at one time with the Library of Congress. She is always extremely troubled by website conversations like this one, because of the misinformation and incomplete information that gets tossed about, which ultimately impacts their job when new field works arrive for restoration, capture and preservation. Because some are severely damaged or destroyed by 'home-brew' treatments and other mishandling events. We actually discussed this conversation about soaking pinch rollers, and she was flabbergasted over the use of such chemicals as brake fluid and penetrating solvents anywhere near the tape media. As was I, as I have dealt with such tape for decades.
The prevailing field method to 'restore' a magnetic recording tape that is already suffering oxide shedding is to heat it under controlled conditions. Because the primary cause of the shedding is binder detachment from hydration. I was aware of this 'baking' method for a number of years. This restoration method is the only field method that does not necessarily damage the binder polymer with the existing oxide profile (the recording). Because of the sensitive nature of the tapes they handle, all the rest are done in the lab. The binder composition is roughly determined, but only to the extent that it can be successfully run through a machine once to capture a digital copy of the content. The master tapes are then sent to a climate controlled storage location for long-term archiving.
I am told that any further chemical treatment or procedure (particularly in an already degraded example) will almost always damage the original oxide composition, if not immediately, then over time. Because hydroscopic polymers and particularly ones containing various oxide formulae are inherently volatile and reactive in the face of many chemicals. I did not specifically discuss naptha with her. The conversation was in the context of preserving the original oxide magnetic signature (the data), and not necessarily the recoating of the binder with some additional oxides (which I am told is destructive to the original 'impression') for further use.
She's also aware of the growing shortage of operational machines to even play this media, and I'm told it is worsening in their field, and that good-running legacy machines for capture are increasingly valuable to them.
I'm no chemist or archival scientist, but that is the skinny on it. Bottom line: Don't unnecessarily expose the oxide-coated side of your tapes to unknown chemicals, unless you are absolutely sure of the interaction, or the recording could be damaged (either immediately or over time).
I already knew this as an enthusiast, and didn't need an archival scientist relative to tell me about it. We used a water-based cleaner in a pinch to clean dying rollers. But if you want to smear Nu-Finish on your tapes, go for it. I will not stop you.
phantomrebel
Serial Tapist
I understand your point, but show me ONE published report of a long-chain petroleum-based solvent doing harm to magnetic tape. I ask because it seems a very deep concern. Water-based cleaners do known harm to tape since, as you state, the binders are hydroscopic and water removal is the basis behind baking.
Last edited:
Retrovert
Addicted Member
Errr, was that a specific "you" or a collective "you"?
I merely pointed out the formulations of the products being discussed, the various merits of cleaners, and that methyl salicylate has been widely used as a re-plasticizer for many decades.
It works on turntable idler wheels which are relatively simple creatures, and brittle or hardened rubber products. I'm agnostic as to its effects on tape, whether old or new, and whether polyester or other material. My quick search on effects did not turn up anything one way or the other.
Again, I'm not going to continue with this discussion, because it is apparent that the advocates for this solvent-based treatment are obviously committed to it, and will defend it no matter the contrary view, and in the face of considerations that extend beyond the treated element.
Suffice it to say that I have placed on the thread sufficient information for Gadget and others who may find it later to be sufficiently cautioned. It comes from a good and knowledgable source that deals with this media at an archival level, and confirms my own experience in dealing with these machines. This method to treat rubber rollers has been raised and advocated in a public forum titled 'tape', not 'rubber', or 'chemistry'. It does not exist in a vacuum, but within the context of magnetic tape audio. Lay users of magnetic tape equipment will presumably refer to it, and perhaps rely on it, either now or in future.
I don't have to prove anything about this method. The burden to prove that these chemical solvent treatments do not harm magnetic tape media falls on you, the proponents of it. I am not going to hunt down 'published reports' for your edification. Probably because there are so few instances of users subjecting magnetic tape to such solvents, and it is not customary in the field or the industry to do so.
Pride goeth . . .
Suffice it to say that I have placed on the thread sufficient information for Gadget and others who may find it later to be sufficiently cautioned. It comes from a good and knowledgable source that deals with this media at an archival level, and confirms my own experience in dealing with these machines. This method to treat rubber rollers has been raised and advocated in a public forum titled 'tape', not 'rubber', or 'chemistry'. It does not exist in a vacuum, but within the context of magnetic tape audio. Lay users of magnetic tape equipment will presumably refer to it, and perhaps rely on it, either now or in future.
I don't have to prove anything about this method. The burden to prove that these chemical solvent treatments do not harm magnetic tape media falls on you, the proponents of it. I am not going to hunt down 'published reports' for your edification. Probably because there are so few instances of users subjecting magnetic tape to such solvents, and it is not customary in the field or the industry to do so.
Pride goeth . . .
Last edited:
phantomrebel
Serial Tapist
Sorry, I thought this was a friendly, informative discussion. If one is going to make important claims, they need to back them up. I am very sensitive to restoration. I have done extensive research in the area of vinyl record cleaning/chemistry and have contributed to the long thread on the topic with references as back up. I am very interested in magnetic tape and have yet to read anything stating harm done by the solvents mentioned here which is why I was asking. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just haven't encountered any such reports and would love to read them. An anecdotal suggestion from a relative is as weak as internet forum banter. Surely there is quotable research behind the claims of damage if they are credible and I believe, given the agreed importance of this topic to many, they would be provided. We all want to do good by our tapes and accurate, scientific-based information is important.
This is an extensive and reputable review of tape preservation:
https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/pub54.pdf
It clearly indicates that the biggest problem is hydrolysis. Hence, I'd never clean my tape or impregnate my rollers with water.
This is an extensive and reputable review of tape preservation:
https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/pub54.pdf
It clearly indicates that the biggest problem is hydrolysis. Hence, I'd never clean my tape or impregnate my rollers with water.
Last edited:
Moderation Note:
Let's dial down the attitude folks. Disagreement is allowed. Diverse opinions are allowed. Interpersonal back and forth is not.
Rich P
Let's dial down the attitude folks. Disagreement is allowed. Diverse opinions are allowed. Interpersonal back and forth is not.
Rich P
There are several issues in your reasoning. First off (and I apologize if you feel that I'm patronizing), you claim to have done research in the domain of vinyl chemistry. The word "research" has a precise meaning: that's scientific research, leading to writing articles in peer-reviewed journals, and that is not at all like what happens on internet forums - including the thread you mentioned. After all, if you were a scientist working in the field you wouldn't be asking for information here, would you?
The second issue is that (if I get it right) you want others to prove you that what you're doing is unsafe, otherwise you will keep doing it. This is the same as saying "prove me that this unknown substance is bad for health, or I'll drink a bucketful of it!". You can probably understand that anyone involved in preservation (be it the preservation of life or of archives) finds this state of mind hard to accept. It's probably the reason of sgmlaw's rather vehement posts, and I must concur that I too wouldn't trust my tapes to a restoration professional who would think like this. In other words, you should think about it the other way round.
In summary, you are asking in the wrong forum. However there are several places on the internet where you can get solid, reliable information from restoration professionals: Richard Hess' website, IASA, and many more. More generalist places have useful info too: AES, IEEE, etc. This is where you should go. You will find there that the pros refrain from doing things unless they're proven to be useful and safe - but you will find that a very few substances are approved - when appropriate and with all due precautions. All the others are considered unsafe a priori, so no need to prove them harmful since we don't need this not to use them.
BTW, hydrolysis is not the main problem, in that it would be the problem happening to all the tape stock and the other problems would be secondary. Hydrolysis is just one (although the most known) of many degradation modes. For many tapes water won't cause hydrolysis. It's good that you have found a source, but so far you have only scratched a tiny bit of the surface and you are still missing a lot of information. Take the time to read the rest, it will change your understanding of a very wide domain.
As for naphta, it's been used for many decades as the main component of products widely used to rejuvenate idler wheels, and no connection has been made between rejuvenated idler wheels and tape degration, so it is considered safe for this use. Obviously, the idler wheel is dry by the time you play tape so the naphta doesn't go on the tape. I am not aware of any use for naphta on the tape itself (in professional restoration, that is).
Last edited:
phantomrebel
Serial Tapist
I appreciate the moderators note, and I think we all are on a good standing and nature here, and will all try to make it less personal.
Actually, much scientific research (including my recent work) is done in an industrial setting. In fact, most drug development is done this way. Trade secrets are rarely published. This is likely why commercial rubber rejuvenator or record cleaner MSDS sheets are often vague. That said, we should seek out what is publicly available about what is safe for both our rollers and our tapes. So far, I haven't seen anything indicating the rubber treatments (specifically the type Retrovert was suggesting) are damaging to tapes, but I'm certainly interested in this and appreciate anything being brought forward on the topic.
Actually, much scientific research (including my recent work) is done in an industrial setting. In fact, most drug development is done this way. Trade secrets are rarely published. This is likely why commercial rubber rejuvenator or record cleaner MSDS sheets are often vague. That said, we should seek out what is publicly available about what is safe for both our rollers and our tapes. So far, I haven't seen anything indicating the rubber treatments (specifically the type Retrovert was suggesting) are damaging to tapes, but I'm certainly interested in this and appreciate anything being brought forward on the topic.
I don't think anyone is asking about tape restoration. The point was made that solvent-based rubber treatments damage tape and it was asked that some evidence be presented. The summary article I presented was merely to point out that there is universal evidence that water (humidity) effects tapes negatively. There was no attempt to initiate an in-depth discussion on tape preservation.
Last edited:
Retrovert
Addicted Member
The lemmings were actually faked by Disney. I remember when this was popularized over thirty years ago. Turns out a lot of documentary footage was faked, even by supposedly reputable nature documentary makers.
Anyway, the lemmings:
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56
Lemming Suicide Myth
Disney Film Faked Bogus Behavior
By Riley Woodford
Lemmings do not commit mass suicide. It's a myth, but it's remarkable how many people believe it. Ask a few.
"It's a complete urban legend," said state wildlife biologist Thomas McDonough. "I think it blew out of proportion based on a Disney documentary in the '50s, and that brought it to the mainstream."
Lemmings are a kind of short tailed vole, a mouse-like rodent that favors tundra and open grasslands. Three kinds are found in Alaska, including the collared lemming, the only rodent that turns white in winter.
In 1958 Walt Disney produced "White Wilderness," part of the studio's "True Life Adventure" series. "White Wilderness" featured a segment on lemmings, detailing their strange compulsion to commit mass suicide.
According to a 1983 investigation by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation producer Brian Vallee, the lemming scenes were faked. The lemmings supposedly committing mass suicide by leaping into the ocean were actually thrown off a cliff by the Disney filmmakers. The epic "lemming migration" was staged using careful editing, tight camera angles and a few dozen lemmings running on snow covered lazy-Susan style turntable.
"White Wilderness" was filmed in Alberta, Canada, a landlocked province, and not on location in lemmings' natural habitat. There are about 20 lemming species found in the circumpolar north - but evidently not in that area of Alberta. So the Disney people bought lemmings from Inuit children a couple provinces away in Manitoba and staged the whole sequence.
In the lemming segment, the little rodents assemble for a mass migration, scamper across the tundra and ford a tiny stream as narrator Winston Hibbler explains that, "A kind of compulsion seizes each tiny rodent and, carried along by an unreasoning hysteria, each falls into step for a march that will take them to a strange destiny."
That destiny is to jump into the ocean. As they approach the "sea," (actually a river -more tight cropping) Hibbler continues, "They've become victims of an obsession -- a one-track thought: Move on! Move on!"
The "pack of lemmings" reaches the final precipice. "This is the last chance to turn back," Hibbler states. "Yet over they go, casting themselves out bodily into space."
Certainly, some scenes in nature documentaries are staged. In Sir David Attenborough's recent documentary, "The Life of Birds," the close-up footage of a flying duck, filmed razor-sharp from the bird's wingtip, was shot from a car using a mallard drake trained to fly alongside the car. But faking an entirely mythical event is something else.
"Disney had to have gotten that idea from somewhere," said Thomas McDonough, the state wildlife biologist. Disney likely confused dispersal with migration, he added, and embellished a kernel of truth.
Lemming populations fluctuate enormously based on predators, food, climate and other factors. Under ideal conditions, in a single year a population of voles can increase by a factor of ten. When they've exhausted the local food supply, they disperse, as do moose, beaver and many other animals.
Lemmings can swim and will cross bodies of water in their quest for greener pastures. Sometimes they drown. Dispersal and accidental death is a far cry from the instinctive, deliberate mass suicide depicted in "White Wilderness," but Hibbler explains that life is tough in the lemmings' "weird world of frozen chaos." The voice-over implies that lemmings take the plunge every seven to ten years to alleviate overpopulation.
"What people see is essentially mass dispersal," said zoologist Gordon Jarrell, an expert in small mammals with the University of Alaska Fairbanks. "Sometimes it's pretty directional. The classic example is in the Scandinavian mountains, where (lemmings) have been dramatically observed. They will come to a body of water and be temporarily stopped, and eventually they'll build up along the shore so dense and they will swim across. If they get wet to the skin, they 're essentially dead."
"There's no question that at times they will build up to huge numbers," Jarrell added. "One description from Barrow does talk about them drowning and piling up on the shore."
Jarrell said when people learn that he works with lemmings, the mass suicide issue often comes up.
"It's a frequent question," he said "'Do they really kill themselves?' No. The answer is unequivocal, no they don't."
Lemming Suicide Myth
Disney Film Faked Bogus Behavior
By Riley Woodford
Lemmings do not commit mass suicide. It's a myth, but it's remarkable how many people believe it. Ask a few.
"It's a complete urban legend," said state wildlife biologist Thomas McDonough. "I think it blew out of proportion based on a Disney documentary in the '50s, and that brought it to the mainstream."
Lemmings are a kind of short tailed vole, a mouse-like rodent that favors tundra and open grasslands. Three kinds are found in Alaska, including the collared lemming, the only rodent that turns white in winter.
In 1958 Walt Disney produced "White Wilderness," part of the studio's "True Life Adventure" series. "White Wilderness" featured a segment on lemmings, detailing their strange compulsion to commit mass suicide.
According to a 1983 investigation by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation producer Brian Vallee, the lemming scenes were faked. The lemmings supposedly committing mass suicide by leaping into the ocean were actually thrown off a cliff by the Disney filmmakers. The epic "lemming migration" was staged using careful editing, tight camera angles and a few dozen lemmings running on snow covered lazy-Susan style turntable.
"White Wilderness" was filmed in Alberta, Canada, a landlocked province, and not on location in lemmings' natural habitat. There are about 20 lemming species found in the circumpolar north - but evidently not in that area of Alberta. So the Disney people bought lemmings from Inuit children a couple provinces away in Manitoba and staged the whole sequence.
In the lemming segment, the little rodents assemble for a mass migration, scamper across the tundra and ford a tiny stream as narrator Winston Hibbler explains that, "A kind of compulsion seizes each tiny rodent and, carried along by an unreasoning hysteria, each falls into step for a march that will take them to a strange destiny."
That destiny is to jump into the ocean. As they approach the "sea," (actually a river -more tight cropping) Hibbler continues, "They've become victims of an obsession -- a one-track thought: Move on! Move on!"
The "pack of lemmings" reaches the final precipice. "This is the last chance to turn back," Hibbler states. "Yet over they go, casting themselves out bodily into space."
Certainly, some scenes in nature documentaries are staged. In Sir David Attenborough's recent documentary, "The Life of Birds," the close-up footage of a flying duck, filmed razor-sharp from the bird's wingtip, was shot from a car using a mallard drake trained to fly alongside the car. But faking an entirely mythical event is something else.
"Disney had to have gotten that idea from somewhere," said Thomas McDonough, the state wildlife biologist. Disney likely confused dispersal with migration, he added, and embellished a kernel of truth.
Lemming populations fluctuate enormously based on predators, food, climate and other factors. Under ideal conditions, in a single year a population of voles can increase by a factor of ten. When they've exhausted the local food supply, they disperse, as do moose, beaver and many other animals.
Lemmings can swim and will cross bodies of water in their quest for greener pastures. Sometimes they drown. Dispersal and accidental death is a far cry from the instinctive, deliberate mass suicide depicted in "White Wilderness," but Hibbler explains that life is tough in the lemmings' "weird world of frozen chaos." The voice-over implies that lemmings take the plunge every seven to ten years to alleviate overpopulation.
"What people see is essentially mass dispersal," said zoologist Gordon Jarrell, an expert in small mammals with the University of Alaska Fairbanks. "Sometimes it's pretty directional. The classic example is in the Scandinavian mountains, where (lemmings) have been dramatically observed. They will come to a body of water and be temporarily stopped, and eventually they'll build up along the shore so dense and they will swim across. If they get wet to the skin, they 're essentially dead."
"There's no question that at times they will build up to huge numbers," Jarrell added. "One description from Barrow does talk about them drowning and piling up on the shore."
Jarrell said when people learn that he works with lemmings, the mass suicide issue often comes up.
"It's a frequent question," he said "'Do they really kill themselves?' No. The answer is unequivocal, no they don't."
Retrovert
Addicted Member
I concur.
One clarification: I can't take any credit for originating the rejuvenation treatment using methyl salicylate.
I merely explained from what the Super-Duper Top-Sekret Rejuvenation Elixer and Ice-Cream Topping was made, and why the other formulations were of dubious value or would not work, and the mechanisms of action.
Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read. There was a full article about those Disney docs, on the occasion of 50 years after Disney's death. The author talked at length about the many liberties taken in these wildlife programmes. Re. the lemming story though, it turns out that Disney's folks did not make it up themselves, they just didn't hire a proper zoologist (a very lame excuse when you claim to make a documentary called "True life"!). But the lemmings legend is older than that, it appears in Arthur C. Clarke's "the possessed" short story, published in 1953. Even great minds can be fooled (and at least Clarke didn't pretend he was writing a book on the actual lemmings).
Well, that's a good candidate for the off-topic post of the year award, isn't it?
I know, I've done both industrial and academic research. The point is that industrial research is usually pure R&D (development of new products using pre-known concepts and internal know-how), and the basic knowledge very rarely stems from this kind of work - which means that the information you are requesting is very probably not a trade secret (and if it was, you would not find someone here to break it). You will find that most of the useful information is publicly available, only you are not working in the field it's difficult to know where to find it (and to understand it too, I'm afraid). Besides, most sources (scientific journals, unexpired patents) are not free. That's where secondary sources like professional networksare a big help.
That is correct. Many people on forums mistakenly believe that MSDSes contains the formula, whereas they only contain the minimal information required to address security concerns without unveiling the actual formula. Note, however, that sometimes the manufacturers do publish their formulas (in photography, for instance), it's entirely their choice.
I appreciate that. I just said that you are much more likely to find the kind of knowledge you are looking for (tape preservation) at places where people use it, and that's on tape restoration forums where professionals gather. Tape restoration and tape preservation are very closely related topics.
BTW you could also ask your question to Wilhelm on the Tapeheads forum. AFAIK he is the only audio forum member who has actually worked in the tape industry.
Last edited:
phantomrebel
Serial Tapist
I'll ignore the patronizing (I spent over 20 years as a research scientist/professor in academia and have hundreds of publications and patents) and will simply state that we should focus on whether the commercial (or similar homemade) solvent-based rubber restoration products actually damage tape. I'm well aware of the use of solvents in tape restoration (removing splice residues, for example) and have never seen reports of damage due to their use. These rubber treatments have been in use for decades so if they are causing tape damage, there should be reports in the public domain.
I am not asking a question, I'm merely responding to member smglaw's claim that the recommended rubber treatments damage tape by asking for evidence. If true, we need to know about it. The notion that the burden is on others to prove it doesn't do damage is illogical.
I am not asking a question, I'm merely responding to member smglaw's claim that the recommended rubber treatments damage tape by asking for evidence. If true, we need to know about it. The notion that the burden is on others to prove it doesn't do damage is illogical.
Last edited:
Well, again I apologize if you mistakenly feel that I was patronizing. As you know, your CV does not appear in your profile or in your posts. As for the topic at hand, you wanted to know where to find information, I told you exactly where to find it, and I now know that you even have access to the primary litterature so it will be all the more easy for you to find papers and post them here (and I'll be genuinely interested). I don't feel it necessary to continue this discussion until then.
Exactly. If the professionals routinely use a given chemical and don't report any problems, then that would be the answer. No need to ask for chemistry articles.
If it's how you read my posts, then you didn't get my point at all, but let's leave it at that. Flaming wars and misunderstandings are not thing.
phantomrebel
Serial Tapist
No worries jlb, I am indeed totally misunderstanding what your point is so let's leave it at that. But it sounds as though you've done a lot of reading in the area so if you come across anything that states rubber treatments damage tape, I'm all ears!
That was never claimed. Read the posts more carefully.
What I posted is that throughout these chemical discussions, zero consideration had been given to the possible chemical interactions between these solvent based treatments and the polymer tape oxides that they could be coming into contact with. And that without adequate consideration or proof of their non destructiveness, such treatments should be treated with due caution.
You immediately demanded proof of them causing damage, when the burden in these matters to prove their safety is on the proponents of them.
jlb2 is quite correct. The default professional position in matters such as this is to refrain from unproven treatments and methods until they can be proven as non-destructive. You simply do not expose magnetic tape media to untested chemicals.
That fundamental consideration was not even contemplated until I first mentioned it, somewhat obliquely in post #13.
I only later returned to this thread because a friend from the Fisher forum was contemplating this treatment. I am only returning now because you have obviously misread what I wrote, and continue to misstate my postings.
phantomrebel
Serial Tapist
Got it. You are expressing a concern. My problem is I do not see the basis for the concern when these products (specifically the Xylene, Methyl Salicyate mixtures discussed) have been in common use for decades. I could say "Teac decks may damage tapes" and I'm sure you would ask "How's that?". I'm not saying it is invalid, I just want to know why this alarm is being sounded. Are there numerous reports or studies? I love my tapes and would like to know.
My feeling is that the point may be moot as very little of the volatile solvent likely remains after roller treatment that could possible be transferred to the tape.
Last edited:
No. I am more than expressing a concern. I am issuing a warning to bystanders that the usual methodology in these matters is not being followed. And that there is unknown risk.
The primary thread participants are entirely fixated on chemically restoring a rubber part, without regard to anything else. You have already admitted that you really don't know what is in any established commercial product . . . because many are trade secrets. Every formula that has been discussed in this thread are conjectured home-brew formulations. And all are unproven in the context of magnetic tape media. Brake fluid has not been in common use in the recording industry for decades. Neither was the formula being advocated. "Common use" in an automobile garage? Sure. But never in the environment of where it was being considered here.
Would you shave with a circular saw? Because, you know, circular saws have been in common use for decades. See the point?
This is a forum about magnetic audio tape, a chemically fragile and volatile media. And there are ethical considerations when archival data -- in this case people's audio recordings -- is in the equation.
To speak your language, this is not "Teac decks damage tapes". It is "an unproven chemical compound may get on your tape media". The correct, and archivally ethical, response should be "How do we know it won't attack the tapes?"
You keep asking for proof and reports. I could have just as easily demanded the advocates of this treatment to provide laboratory research evidence that these chemicals definitively do not harm magnetic tape media. Because that is how it is done in the industry. Instead, I highlighted the concerns, explained at length the technical reasons for the concerns, and issued a cautionary note to warn others.
The basis for the concern is painfully obvious.
If you can't see the gravity of this basis at this point, there is little more that either jlb2 or I can say. You simply think very differently than we do.
The primary thread participants are entirely fixated on chemically restoring a rubber part, without regard to anything else. You have already admitted that you really don't know what is in any established commercial product . . . because many are trade secrets. Every formula that has been discussed in this thread are conjectured home-brew formulations. And all are unproven in the context of magnetic tape media. Brake fluid has not been in common use in the recording industry for decades. Neither was the formula being advocated. "Common use" in an automobile garage? Sure. But never in the environment of where it was being considered here.
Would you shave with a circular saw? Because, you know, circular saws have been in common use for decades. See the point?
This is a forum about magnetic audio tape, a chemically fragile and volatile media. And there are ethical considerations when archival data -- in this case people's audio recordings -- is in the equation.
To speak your language, this is not "Teac decks damage tapes". It is "an unproven chemical compound may get on your tape media". The correct, and archivally ethical, response should be "How do we know it won't attack the tapes?"
You keep asking for proof and reports. I could have just as easily demanded the advocates of this treatment to provide laboratory research evidence that these chemicals definitively do not harm magnetic tape media. Because that is how it is done in the industry. Instead, I highlighted the concerns, explained at length the technical reasons for the concerns, and issued a cautionary note to warn others.
The basis for the concern is painfully obvious.
If you can't see the gravity of this basis at this point, there is little more that either jlb2 or I can say. You simply think very differently than we do.
Last edited:
Ok, you guys, time for a beer break! I didn't anticipate the technical shiite-storm, however enlightening. All responses are appreciated re: potential useful products/treatments. Can't hurt the drive wheels,as they're currently junk, but I shall proceed cautiously with the pinch roller groove issue. Reason for wanting to resurrect this old deck is its 1 7/8ips capability, since finding a few tapes in my inherited archives of several hundred 7" tapes with speech recorded at this speed. Already found a recording of my grand-dad (maternal), a Hungarian import, describing events in his life, very enlightening, a few things even Mom was unaware of. Very time_consuming, going through these, & have a long way to go. Was using my Realistic TR-3000, but it's only a 2-speed unit, as is my Revox B-77 .Many of these tapes were estate/yard sale, flea market finds that dear uncle hoarded, so bulk erasing going on. However, i have recordings of historic interest, newscasts of Nixon resigning, Apollo space missions, Winston Churchill speeches, Kennedy assassination, & God knows what else! A lot of very degraded or poorly-recorded stuff, also. All the Kodak tape is physically useless, it degraded like an unburied corpse, but is providing a lot of empty reels, soon to show up on BT. Kodak reels are the best, most user_friendly of the lot. Moderator, it may be time to wrap up this thread, in order to preserve the peace! Jerry 