RE: FROM NuArc was PPG Starphire Glass ( ?? Questioning My Data)

From: Eric Neilsen ^lt;>
Date: 11/19/05-11:56:38 AM Z
Message-id: <002001c5ed32$97b16420$51a0fea9@NEWDELL>

Bob, Did they tell you, or do you know how thick it is?

Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BOB KISS []
> Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 10:03 AM
> To:
> Subject: FROM NuArc was PPG Starphire Glass ( ?? Questioning My Data)
> I don't know if this is useful to anyone but I received a reply to a
> question I sent to NuArc Tech services. They stated that they use
> "standard" glass but make sure it is perfect, i.e. no bubbles or ripples
> in
> it.
> Please check my website:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Neilsen []
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 11:37 PM
> To:
> Subject: PPG Starphire Glass ( ?? Questioning My Data)
> After last nights back and forth, I was indeed going to call PPG.
> This required all of 3 minutes and a short wait for a return call. I
> received a call back from Penny Bridges. She has since faxed to me data
> for
> both the Starphire glass and SOLARPHIRE glass. The thinnest that the
> Starphire is listed as being manufactured is 1/8" or 3.3mm and all the way
> up to 3/4. The data sheets do differ somewhat from those I received in
> 1992
> as one would expect; most businesses update their literature. I received
> separate sheets for 4mm and 8mm and this one combines the information and
> transmission data in 10nm increments and only shows transmission data for
> a
> glass with a thickness of 5.66mm. It does not show up on the available
> sizes
> but that is what is referred to in the chart.
> While it does not match my data, as one would expect from different
> thickness of glass, it does come darn close to the 4mm data that I have.
> It
> is not what I believe to be true as Sandy indicated in his email, but what
> I
> know to be true based on the manufactures data. Penny said that they have
> not changed it since they first starting making it but do offer a coating.
> It took very me little effort and would certainly have been something that
> I
> would have done if I were to include test information about a type glass
> in
> a book : ) But wait, that is what I DID back in 1992. It appears in my
> book
> on platinum printing. I don't site all the data. But do talk about why and
> when one might benefit from using it.
> This data also talks about the infrared quality of the glass. I have not
> studied gum like I have studied platinum/palladium printing. It may be
> that
> Judy's experience with Starphire has something to do with other
> characteristics of the glass that are not beneficial to the chemistry she
> used.
> At this moment, I can't lay my hands on them which does bother me. I took
> them out of my notes to make copies for some students and can't locate
> them.
> I do however, have the data for the 4mm which is what Sandy googled.
> I will however, be glad to post PDF's of the documents after I receive
> them
> in the mail. The faxes are OK, but I'd rather wait at least until I have a
> chance to print them with my higher quality printer. I am sure she'll fax
> them to you too Sandy.
> The PPG web site that I posted last night has their phone number. I
> suggest
> calling them.
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 214-827-8301
Received on Sat Nov 19 11:56:46 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/01/05-02:04:50 PM Z CST