"Innovation be banned" Note: Emails are organized in the order received, with first received at the top. Dear Readers: Well, I made an error again last week (second one this year if anyone is counting). Mario Andretti did win the Indianapolis 500 in 1969, but the car had a Ford engine, not the turbine. I had even done some fact checking, but I was so convinced that I was right, my fact checking was flawed. The turbines had already been banned by 1969. Thanks to Phil Harris for pointing out the error of my ways. Jim *** Jim, I'm glad to see that you weren't advocating the abolition of innovation, as your title appears to suggest! As you know, I hope to lead a track on "Papermaking Innovations" at PaperCon10 in Atlanta next May, and your idea of reducing paper machine weight is the first talk to sign up. (At the rate the paper industry develops innovations, I'm sure the prototype will be on-line by then!) A call for papers will be coming from TAPPI shortly, but if any of your innovative readers would like to give a presentation, I would love for them to contact me. Best regards, Jeff Reese Loveland, Ohio USA *** Jim, Your blanket indictment of scientists is way over the top. As in any human endeavor, some will work the system for personal gain, but dissing a whole class of people who are in the great majority committed to objective inquiry is grossly unfair. To demonstrate the fallacy of your position, I invite you to come to Auburn to test whether our work is "flawed". Best regards, Harry Cullinan Auburn, Alabama USA --- Harry: I wasn't even thinking of Auburn when I made that statement. However, it would be far more convincing if any research program (yours or anyone else's) could send me to four or five mills where their inventions have been in place for a while and are making the mills lots of money. To come to a research center and see what is going on there seems to prove my point. Jim --- Jim, OK. Here's just one example. The technology and the company described in the attached brochure resulted from years of fundamental research here at Auburn. We pushed it all the way through from DOE-funded research to full commercialization using funds from my center as well as private equity. There are a number of mill installations already in place, and I will get a complete list to you shortly so you can go have a look. We continue to work with the company in the next phase of the business plan which is pointed toward rolling out a real time kappa/yield analyzer system. Harry *** Jim, I very much like your idea of simple goals. It opens up the playing field to numerous solutions rather than eliminating potential solutions by the wording of the goal. Here is a simple question that may help people get to the goal of a 50% weight reduction. Why is water such a large component of a Papermaking? (Think about all the other industries out their that produce sheets, reels, or layers of materials). I happen to work in a coated paper mill, why not powder coat the basesheet like the metals industry do rather than use aqueous solutions? Or can you use an extruding process to make paper or board? Kent Koebertz Grand Rapids, Minnesota USA --- Kent, Harry, all- As I mentioned above, we have started a separate forum to discuss the lightweight machine. Anyone can join it for free at www.cellulosecommunity.net. Jim *** Dear Jim, Further to your quest of making a lighter (more affordable?) paper machine, I am not sure that the use of carbon fiber and the like, which I believe was suggested, is the way to go. Look at bicycles for example. You can purchase frames in a variety of alternative materials- steel, aluminum, titanium, carbon fiber. The more expensive materials make the bike lighter but a lot more expensive (and easier to pedal up steep slopes). Still there may be places where such materials can be justified in the paper industry, so I think you are right in taking the attitude "but what if ....?" I think the whole configuration of the machine needs to be questioned. Just the two storey building structures themselves are intimidating. Going back to my tissue machine analogy I mentioned in my last letter to you, a machine builder made a small tissue machine without any pit in the floor and no vacuum system; the design was dictated, not by the machine builder, but by a small tissue producer that was prepared to shoulder the responsibility if the machine did not perform to specification. Needless to say, the machine met specified performance and is an unqualified success. This is an example of what can be done with thinking outside of the box. Your thought provoking articles are a breath of fresh air in this mature industry. Best regards, Don Toronto, Ontario Canada *** In your grid of 11 x 13 rows and columns of squares there are 12 horizontal lines and 14 vertical lines. All rectangles (including squares, which are rectangles having equal sides) will be defined by any two horizontal lines and any two vertical lines. The number of ways the 14 vertical lines can be selected 2 at a time is given by the combinations 14!/12!2! and the number of ways the 12 horizontal lines can be selected 2 at a time is 12!/10!2!. Multiply these two combinations together and you have the total number of rectangles (including squares), which would be 6006. However, if you choose not to include the squares, you must find the number of squares in the grid and subtract them from 6006. There are obviously 11x13=143 squares that are 1x1. But what about squares of 2x2 all the way up to 11x11? For any given size square x by x, the general formula will be (11-x+1)x(13-x+1). Add these calculations up for x=1 up to x=11 and you get 638. 6006 - 638 = 5368. (For those who are not familiar with factorials, as an example, 3! = 1x2x3) Steve Moore Rhinelander, Wisconsin USA ### Have a comment? Send your email to jthompson@taii.com. Unless you tell us otherwise, we will assume we can use your name if we publish your letter.