ACCU DYNE TEST ™ Bibliography
Provided as an information service by Diversified Enterprises.
showing result page 5 of 76, ordered by
2667. Weiss, D.A., “Effective ink transfer,” Flexo, 41, 68-72, (Oct 2016).
2925. no author cited, “Common surface energy tests: Dyne inks,” Brighton Science, Sep 2016.
2682. Smith, R.E., “Using surface tension test fluids to calibrate a tensiometer,” http://blog.accudynetest.com/using-surface-tension-test-fluids-to-calibrate-a-tensiometer/, Sep 2016.
2681. Smith, R.E., “Discrepant results from one test marker compared to others at the same dyne level,” http://blog.accudynetest.com/discrepant-results-from-one-test-marker-compared-to-others-at-the-same-dyne-level/, Sep 2016.
2652. Gatenby, A., “CSC Scientific blog: Should you move to 'actual' surface tension?,” http://www.cscscientific.com/csc-cientific-blog/should-you-convert-..., Sep 2016.
2830. Kiel, A., “Corona vs. plasma treatment,” https://www.3dtllc.com/corona-vs-plasma-treatment/, Aug 2016.
2680. Smith, R.E., “Corona treater output vs. increase in dyne level,” http://blog.accudynetest.com/corona-treater-output-vs-increase-in-dyne-level/, Aug 2016.
2666. Abbott, S., “Adhesion Apps: Why does a higher level of cross-linking actually make adhesion weaker?,” Converting Quarterly, 6, 16-17, (Aug 2016).
2651. Mania, D.M., “Is there a correlation between contact angle and stain repellency?,” Coatings World, 21, 99-105, (Jul 2016).
2645. Bishop, C.A., “Plasma treatment - inside knowledge,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/vacuum-web-coating/plasma-treatement-inside..., Jul 2016.
2650. Altay, B.N., “Smart ink for flexo,” Flexo, 41, 70-75, (Jun 2016).
2649. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: How do we test for invisible variations in film surface energy?,” Converting Quarterly, 6, 14-15, (May 2016).
2648. Abbott, S., “Adhesion Apps: What IS important in adhesion?,” Converting Quarterly, 6, 12-13, (May 2016).
2644. Mount, E.M. III, “Adhesion loss in metallized laminations,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/substrate-secrets/adhesion-loss-in..., May 2016.
2627. Mahmood, A.A., “Surface energy: An applied experimental design for novel UV-curable coatings,” Presented at RadTech 2016, May 2016.
2626. Henry, E.B., “Determination of the surface energy for UV-curable, easy-release coatings,” Presented at RadTech 2016, May 2016.
2834. Seitz, V., K. Azrt, S. Mahnel, C. Rapp, S. Schwaminger, M. Hoffstetter, E. Wintermantel, “Improvement of adhesion strength of self-adhesive silicone rubber on thermoplastic substrates - Comparison of atmospheric pressure plasma jet (APPJ) and a Pyrosil flame,” Intl. J. Adhesion and Adhesives, 66, 65-72, (Apr 2016).
Polymeric hard/soft combinations consisting of a rigid, thermoplastic substrate and an elastomeric component offer many advantages for plastic parts in industry. Manufactured in one step by multi-component injection moulding, the strength of the thermoplastics can be combined with sealing, damping or haptic properties of an elastomer. Bonds of self-adhesive liquid silicone rubber (LSR) on high performance thermoplastics such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or polyphenylene sulphide (PPS) are especially interesting e.g. for medical applications due to their outstanding resistance properties. To ensure good adhesion between the two components, surface treatments from an atmospheric pressure plasma jet (APPJ) and a Pyrosil® flame are applied. Chemical changes on the thermoplastic surfaces are verified by water contact angle measurement (CA) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). Plasma treatment causes a decline in water contact angle, indicating the formation of functional groups, especially –OH, on the surface. XPS measurements confirm the increase of oxygen on the surface. Thus, the number of functional groups on the thermoplastic surface is enlarged by plasma treatment, leading to stronger bonding to the organofunctional silanes of the self-adhesive silicone rubber. A thin layer of silanol groups is created by the Pyrosil® flame on the thermoplastic substrates, which could be verified by XPS. A hydrophilic behaviour of the coated surface is noticed. Both surface modification methods lead to enhanced adhesion properties of self-adhesive LSR on thermoplastic surfaces. This is confirmed by 90°- peel tests of the injection-moulded composites leading to an increase in peel force by the applied surface modification techniques.
2679. Smith, R.E., “Sample orientation for dyne testing,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/sample-orientation-for-dyne-testing/, Apr 2016.
2647. Willes, B., “Treating the surface: Options for all surface types,” Plastics Decorating, 14-16, (Apr 2016).
2646. Schoff, C.K., “Application defects,” CoatingsTech, 13, 32-39, (Apr 2016).
2637. Smith, R.E., “Polymer surface energy vs. coefficient of friction (COF),” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/polymer-surface-energy-vs-coefficient-of-friction-cof/, Apr 2016.
2643. Smith, R.E., “Using the dyne test to evaluate the cleanliness of metals,” http://accudynetest.com/dyne_test_metal_cleanliness.html, Mar 2016.
2638. Smith, R.E., “Why not to use brush applicator caps for bottled dyne solutions,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/brush-applicator-caps-for-bottled-dyne-solutions/, Mar 2016.
2628. Krasucki, D., “New technology improvements keep Mayer rods competitive,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/web-coating/new-technology-improvements-..., Mar 2016.
2640. Smith, R.E., “Polarity of corona-treated polymer film,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/polarity-of-corona-treated-polymer-film/, Feb 2016.
2639. Smith, R.E., “Testing metals for cleanliness,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/testing-metals-for-cleanliness/, Feb 2016.
2629. Coombes, N., “Corona control: Learning to understand the treatment basics,” Flexo, 41, 26-27, (Feb 2016).
2624. Bishop, C.A., “A problem of metal transfer,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/vacuum-web-coating/a-problem-of-metal..., Feb 2016.
2632. Stecher, A., “Ask the expert Q & A: Plasma treating,” Plastics Decorating, 46-51, (Jan 2016).
2631. Kaverman, J., “Methods and materials for difficult pad printing operations,” Plastics Decorating, 14-16, (Jan 2016).
2630. Abbott, S., “Adhesion Apps: What is NOT important in adhesion?,” Converting Quarterly, 6, 10, (Jan 2016).
2872. Law, K.-L, and H. Zhao, Surface Wetting: Characterization, Contact Angle, and Fundamentals, Springer, 2016.
2717. Extrand, C.W., “Uncertainty in contact angle estimates from a Wilhelmy tensiometer,” J. Adhesion Science and Technology, 29, 2515-2520, (2015).
The uncertainty in contact angles from the Wilhelmy tensiometer was analyzed using standard error propagation techniques involving partial derivatives across the full range of wettability, from completely wetting to non-wetting surfaces. Uncertainties in force, sample perimeter, and liquid surface tension of 1% were shown to yield uncertainty in contact angles of a few degrees over the middle range of wettability, but exceeded 10° at the extremes.
2716. Mui, T.S.M., L.L.G. Silva, V. Prysiazhnyi, and K.G. Kostov, “Polyurethane paint adhesion improvement on aluminum alloy treated by plasma jet and dielectric barrier discharge,” J. Adhesion Science and Technology, 30, 218-229, (2016).
The effect of atmospheric pressure plasma treatment on the adhesion between a protective coating and AA1100 alloy was investigated. Two plasma sources were used for surface modifications: atmospheric pressure plasma jet and dielectric barrier discharge. The surface roughness and water contact angle measurements were conducted in order to evaluate the changes on the aluminium surface after plasma processing. The paint coating was tested using the adhesion tape test (ASTM D3359). A significant improvement of surface wettability and adhesion was obtained after plasma treatments.
2715. Extrand, C.W., “Uncertainty in contact angle measurements from the tangent method,” J. Adhesion Science and Technology, 30, 1597-161, (2016).
The uncertainty in contact angles from sessile drops measured by the tangent method was estimated using a standard error propagation technique involving partial derivatives. If contact angles are <60°, then uncertainty of the tangent method appears to be quite small,≤ ± 2°. However, as θ values approach 90°, uncertainty increases asymptotically and can exceed ±5°.
2714. Li, X., M. Toro, F. Lu, J. On, A. Bailey, and T. Debies, “Vacuum UV photo-oxidation of polystyrene,” J. Adhesion Science and Technology, 30, 2212-2223, (2016).
Polystyrene (PS) was treated with vacuum UV (VUV) (λ = 104.8 and 106.7 nm) photo-oxidation and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy detected a controlled increase in the atomic percentage of oxygen up to a saturation level of ca. 20 at% O. Initially, C–O and carbonyl groups are observed due to the formation of alcohols, ethers, esters, and ketones. Water contact angle measurements showed ca. 25% increase in hydrophilicity of the surface with oxidation. Atomic Force Microscopy observed little changes in surface roughness with treatment time. The super water absorbent polymer poly(acrylic acid) was thinly grafted to the modified PS surface.
2713. Sugizaki, Y., T. Shiina, Y. Tanaka, and A. Suzuki, “Effects of peel angle on peel force of adhesive tape from soft adherend,” J. Adhesion Science and Technology, 30, 2637-2654, (2016).
In the case of the peeling of adhesive tapes from soft adherends, the contributions of the compressive force at the adhered portion as well as the larger deformation of adherend have essential roles in determining the peeling properties. In this paper, the peel force of an adhesive tape from a soft adherend has been measured to understand the peeling mechanism, which is greatly affected by the peel angle. A commercially available pressure-sensitive adhesive was used as the tape, and a cross-linked polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) was used as the soft adherend. The purpose of this study is to clarify the effects of the peel angle on the peel behavior of this system at room temperature under different material specifications and different experimental conditions. The factors that affect the peel force of the PDMS adherend included the degree of cross-linking in PDMS, the thickness of PDMS, peel angle, and peel velocity. Two characteristic peel patterns were observed, which depended on the material specifications and different experimental conditions. The peel mechanism was discussed in terms of the deformation of the adherend.
2207. Wolf, R.A., “Effect of the electrical conductivities of corona discharge ground rolls on surface treatment,” in 2016 PLACE Conference Proceedings, TAPPI Press, 2016.
2620. Sabreen, S.R., “Best process practices for polyamide (nylon) adhesion bonding,” http://plasticsdecoratingblog.com/p=540#more-540, Nov 2015.
2642. Smith, R.E., “Cleaning silicone treater sleeves,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/cleaning-silicone-treater-sleeves, Oct 2015.
<-- Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | Next-->