"A simple goal with vast implications" Note: Emails are organized in the order received, with first received at the top. Greetings Jim; Your consistent efforts to provide an encouraging and positive path forward for the intellectually and financially challenged management in the pulp and paper industry always make for good reading and much albeit frustrated thought. Your latest proposal rings a very loud bell! Over 15 years ago when I was at Champion, I conducted an engineering an investigation with Voith (Brazil, of course) to show that dryer cylinders not only could, but should, be made from aluminum alloy for several reasons: aluminum (as ductile material) has a pressure design safety factor of 3.5 vs 10 for cast iron; aluminum alloys are substantially stronger than gray cast iron and aluminum is 1/3 as dense and steam and condensate do not corrode aluminum alloys (the external surface can be anodized like a Calphalon frying pan for extra wear resistance on doctored dryers). An aluminum dryer weighs approx. 10% as much as a cast iron dryer and it is not susceptible to the cracking problems that require continual inspections. And guess what? An aluminum dryer also is more energy efficient! Cast iron was a logical choice early in the 20th Century, when another material choice with adequate thermal conductivity would have been bronze. But for the past 60 years the industry has unforgivably ignored or deliberately avoided investigating alternative materials that would, a priori, save enormous amounts of money spent to drive the dryers and heat the sheet - and provide greater safety. In this case it's also disappointing that European paper companies also were so technologically blind. The industry has and doggedly continues to wast millions of dollars a year on other legacy problems, including studding recovery boiler tubes without any evidence of any benefit (like people taking food supplements), and maintaining brick and tile linings, which Stebbins originated in the first paper mills back in the 1890s and which economically are far surpassed by corrosion resistant alloys, fiberglass-reinforced plastics (as Boeing certainly knows); thermo-plastics and thermosetting resin materials. For example, an epoxy resin monolithic lining cost about 20% as much as a tile lining to install in a wire pit and subsequently cost less than 10% as much to maintain. Excuses for resisting these simple technological evolutions are that no one at the mill has time to evaluate them - presumably they'll have more time after the mill closes - and a fatal unwillingness to adopt anything that lacks a 15-year track record. Such poor thinking and ineffective leadership sadly epitomizes the pulp and paper industry, especially in North America, with predictable results - GM anyone? Keep up the excellent provocations. Best regards, Dave Bennett Mahwah, New Jersey USA *** Boeing isn't doing very well with composites! George Mead Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin USA *** Jim, One of your best! Spencer Feix Albuquerque, New Mexico USA *** Jim, This is crude, but I'm glad you elaborated on your idea submission of: "As an industry, we should set a goal to reduce the installed weight of paper machines by one half by 2025." Otherwise, judging by the number of machine and total mill shuts here in Wisconsin, it would appear that our industry has proceeded in a simpler manner to accomplish that goal. Bruce Redmond Crystal Falls, Michigan USA *** Panama/Pajamas Nice idea on reducing weight! Best regards, Jeff Reese Loveland, Ohio USA *** Jim, Quoting NI "simply stated, for each grade ... we manufacture, let us figure out a way ... to cut the weight of the machine that makes it by 50% in the next 16 years (on a unit width basis)." Simply stated, dry forming was looked at years ago, that would have cut the drying part of the paper/board machine greatly (perhaps the only way to reduce energy use significantly). There were problems with defibering the pulp. Hammermills were the choice of machinery to defiber. My idea to defiber pulp "chemically" might be able to revive the effort, however, I now neither have the energy, funds or talent to pursue the idea (free to anyone who would like to see it). On the other hand, building more conventional paper/board machines could be mostly a thing of the past, with the use of paper/board dwindling for various reasons. For example, the use of paper to print and copy documents has dwindled in my "office" dramatically. Documents are composed on a laptop screen and saved on electronic media. Messages are sent and received electronically rather than being sent by postal service. Hard copy documents are scanned and saved the same way. Is this happening elsewhere, too? Also, people in our industry so fragmented and timid that your innovative internet CELLULOSE COMMUNITY, now with over 300 members (but we need 3000), "A safe haven for those with ideas outside the norm", still (in my opinion) is mostly populated people waiting for the input of others. Groups like the PHYSICAL PROPERTIES group has 23 members. Yet I think 40-50 members are needed to carry out significant worthwhile discussions. I would like to see more paper people join (http://cellulosecommunity.org ). This an independent invitation, made without any solicitation from you. Someday, when and if we get enough members, perhaps something new and significant can be developed for the paper/board industry via a discussion group. And as a specific example of what could be done now, for example, the industry should have some kind concerted effort to teach people in every manufacturing entity about it so they can resolve problems quickly. I still get 20-30 requests a month for articles on the subject, and about one time a week an email inquiry for more details. With this many people seeking information seems like it is quite a big problem, and one that occurs too often. All the best, Chuck Green Webster, New York USA --- Thanks, Chuck--a couple of points. The Cellulose Community also has a collection of members over on "Linkedin" that numbers over 600 (which includes some duplicates with the www.cellulosecommunity.org site). This gives us a total of about 750 towards your goal of 3,000. The good news is they are in about forty countries, so we are attracting great brains from around the world. I am looking at more ways to drive innovation. From personal observation, it seems many efforts turn into schemes to figure out how to obtain funding from others which then causes the effort to become unfocused from actually accomplishing something. The Board of the Cellulose Community and I (all serving pro bono with my company picking up any incidental out-of-pocket costs) will continue the struggle. Jim ### 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.

A convenient shortcut: