ACCU DYNE TEST ™ Bibliography
Provided as an information service by Diversified Enterprises.
showing result page 72 of 76, ordered by
2872. Law, K.-L, and H. Zhao, Surface Wetting: Characterization, Contact Angle, and Fundamentals, Springer, 2016.
2630. Abbott, S., “Adhesion Apps: What is NOT important in adhesion?,” Converting Quarterly, 6, 10, (Jan 2016).
2631. Kaverman, J., “Methods and materials for difficult pad printing operations,” Plastics Decorating, 14-16, (Jan 2016).
2632. Stecher, A., “Ask the expert Q & A: Plasma treating,” Plastics Decorating, 46-51, (Jan 2016).
2624. Bishop, C.A., “A problem of metal transfer,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/vacuum-web-coating/a-problem-of-metal..., Feb 2016.
2629. Coombes, N., “Corona control: Learning to understand the treatment basics,” Flexo, 41, 26-27, (Feb 2016).
2639. Smith, R.E., “Testing metals for cleanliness,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/testing-metals-for-cleanliness/, Feb 2016.
2640. Smith, R.E., “Polarity of corona-treated polymer film,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/polarity-of-corona-treated-polymer-film/, Feb 2016.
2628. Krasucki, D., “New technology improvements keep Mayer rods competitive,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/web-coating/new-technology-improvements-..., 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.
2643. Smith, R.E., “Using the dyne test to evaluate the cleanliness of metals,” http://accudynetest.com/dyne_test_metal_cleanliness.html, Mar 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.
2646. Schoff, C.K., “Application defects,” CoatingsTech, 13, 32-39, (Apr 2016).
2647. Willes, B., “Treating the surface: Options for all surface types,” Plastics Decorating, 14-16, (Apr 2016).
2679. Smith, R.E., “Sample orientation for dyne testing,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/sample-orientation-for-dyne-testing/, Apr 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.
2626. Henry, E.B., “Determination of the surface energy for UV-curable, easy-release coatings,” Presented at RadTech 2016, May 2016.
2627. Mahmood, A.A., “Surface energy: An applied experimental design for novel UV-curable coatings,” Presented at RadTech 2016, May 2016.
2644. Mount, E.M. III, “Adhesion loss in metallized laminations,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/substrate-secrets/adhesion-loss-in..., May 2016.
2648. Abbott, S., “Adhesion Apps: What IS important in adhesion?,” Converting Quarterly, 6, 12-13, (May 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).
2650. Altay, B.N., “Smart ink for flexo,” Flexo, 41, 70-75, (Jun 2016).
2645. Bishop, C.A., “Plasma treatment - inside knowledge,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/vacuum-web-coating/plasma-treatement-inside..., Jul 2016.
2651. Mania, D.M., “Is there a correlation between contact angle and stain repellency?,” Coatings World, 21, 99-105, (Jul 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).
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.
2830. Kiel, A., “Corona vs. plasma treatment,” https://www.3dtllc.com/corona-vs-plasma-treatment/, Aug 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.
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.
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.
2925. no author cited, “Common surface energy tests: Dyne inks,” Brighton Science, Sep 2016.
2667. Weiss, D.A., “Effective ink transfer,” Flexo, 41, 68-72, (Oct 2016).
2668. no author cited, “Vetaphone launches corona treatment testing machine,” http://www.labelandnarrowweb.com/contents/view_breaking-news/2016-11-09/..., Nov 2016.
2670. Abbott, S., “Adhesion Apps: Why is 'real' adhesion 'unknowable'?,” Converting Quarterly, 6, 12-13, (Nov 2016).
2671. Fichtner, J, T. Beck, and S. Gunther, “Surface modification of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and oxide-coated PET for adhesion improvement,” Converting Quarterly, 6, 48-54, (Nov 2016).
2672. Couchie, M., “Tips for selecting coating chemistries for hard-to-coat plastics,” Plastics Engineering, 72, 40-43, (Nov 2016).
2683. Smith, R.E., “Subsequent processing of dyne tested parts,” http://blog.accudynetest.com/subsequent-processing-of-dyne-tested-parts/, Nov 2016.
2831. Brehmer, F., “Gentle plasma - surface treatment for sensitive materials,” https://3dtllc.com/gentle-plasma-surface-treatment-sensitive-materials/, Dec 2016.
402. no author cited, “ASTM D2578-17: Standard test method for wetting tension of polyethylene and polypropylene films,” ASTM, 2017.
2669. Reisig, S., “Comparative study between pulsed-DC and RF plasma pre-treatment of polymer web,” http://flexpack.info/laminating/comparative-study-between-pulsed-DC-and..., Jan 2017.
<-- 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-->