sintered bases, radioactive wax etc

Were there any experiments done to actually show how much scineted
bases absorb wax and how deep the wax pentetrates? Like, melt wax, add
same radioactive label to the wax, and see how much label is retained
after scraping, brushing, skiing (yeah, California, radioactive snow,
you will like that) and may be how deeply the wax penetrates? And/or
microscope imaging to estimate the size of voids between P-tex
particles? Different base materials etc (extruded versus sintered)?
Just curious.

On Mar 13, 9:52*pm, "
wrote:
Were there any experiments done to actually show how much scineted
bases absorb wax and how deep the wax pentetrates? Like, melt wax, add
same radioactive label to the wax, and see how much label is retained
after scraping, brushing, skiing (yeah, California, radioactive snow,
you will like that) and may be how deeply the wax penetrates? And/or
microscope imaging to estimate the size of voids between P-tex
particles? Different base materials etc (extruded versus sintered)?
Just curious.

I saw Zach C. actually used a P-Tex ribbon he peeled from the base to
show wax penetrated through it. He's the only person I know who can
peel a perfect ribbon from the base. He stretched out the ribbon and
ironed the wax on it. There were some pics on his web site a few years
ago. He also mentioned through very sensitive weighing instruments a
ski gained the weight of the wax after ironing.

There is information from Gurit, base manufacturer :

http://www.gurit.com/core/core_picke...ryfiles&id=153

1.9mg /cm2 for the PT4000 "electra".
Note another information from a chemist at Gurit/IMS says that wax
dissolves into the base (and don't penetrate into inexistant pores.
(reported by leonid Kuzmin in that newsgroup)).

Once this small amount of wax is dissolved into the base, how can we
"remove" it, and put another kind of wax ?
No real way, I guess. The conclusion is that wax penetration is not
the big deal we've heard about for so long.

Take car of your base (no hair, not greyish areas, proper structure)
and the final surface layer.

I've scrapped my bases with a kuzmin tool, then waxed once.
I only put a layer of Nanowax (liquid polymer) on warm conditions.
After 400 kms bases are still plain black and the glide is splendid.

On Mar 15, 4:23*pm, wrote:
There is information from Gurit, base manufacturer :

http://www.gurit.com/core/core_picke...menttable=libr....

1.9mg /cm2 for the PT4000 "electra".
Note another information from a chemist at *Gurit/IMS says that wax
dissolves into the base (and don't penetrate into inexistant pores.
(reported by leonid Kuzmin in that newsgroup)).

Once this small amount of wax is dissolved into the base, how can we
"remove" it, and put another kind of wax ?
No real way, I guess. The conclusion is that wax penetration is not
the big deal we've heard about for so long.

Take car of your base (no hair, not greyish areas, proper structure)
and the final surface layer.

I've scrapped my bases with a kuzmin tool, then waxed once.
I only put a layer of Nanowax (liquid polymer) on warm conditions.
After 400 kms bases are still plain black and the glide is splend

There was a discussion about Kuzmin in this group some time ago. I
read his "scientific" thesis and found it disturbingly ignorant about
what science is.

The link to Gurit is great thanks a lot!!

There was a discussion about Kuzmin in this group some time ago. I
read his "scientific" thesis and found it disturbingly ignorant about
what science is.

At least his thesis opened the minds (and closed the "pores" myth).

I've had hard time to properly remove hairs on a pair Xium. Obviously
the factory grind was exactly how Kuzmin depicted it : poorly done.
My other pairs of Vandel skis (build with race-service bases) with a
shallow factory grind were easier.

At least his thesis opened the minds (and closed the "pores" myth).

His "scientific arguments" in the thesis do not stand even the most
basic scrutiny. The reason why the flaws did not go public is that the
kind of "research" Kuzmin does is in an area nobody really cares
about, and serious scientists never read his publications. I sent his
papers to several researchers at Stanford, UCSF, and Berkeley and they
could not believe this "research" was published. Very, very sad that
the public takes it seriously. But very common, too.

Google "sintered base pores" in Google Scholar and see for yourself
scanning electron photogrpahs of how sintered plastics are produced
and how the surfaces look like, published in peer-reviewed journals.
If you don't have access I can send you .pdfs.

Very, very sad that
the public takes it seriously. But very common, too.

I've asked him where he got those skis with transparent bases. He
replied me that he got them directly from Madshus who is building them
specifically for him.

So, by "public" you are also including Madshus who is taking him
seriously enough to make specific skis for him.

Kuzmin quoted a chemist from Gurit / IMS stating that pores in
sintered bases are a true myth. (re-quoted below)

Kuzmin thesis is certainly arguable from pure science point of view.
But, as you mentionned it, we rarely see pure science in waxing, and
certainly not from wax manufactureurs who are propagating for ages for
the sake of selling their "baseprep" waxes.
This IS sad.
From my experience, Kuzmin is tru : A properly scrapped base stays
plain black for hundreds of kms w/o wax.
Most stone grinds base are affected by grey areas, i.e. hairs and
require re-waxing to "glue" hairs.

Now, is scrapping better than a "world cup" stone grind + high fluoro
final layer, in all conditions ?
Probably not.
The thing is that I can buy a "kuzmin" sickel for 70 Euros and get a
splendid glide all season, while I don't have a world cup stone
grinder at hands..


I re-quote the Chemist from Gurit / IMS below

«Good morning Mr. Kuzmin,

Regarding "porosity" in UHMWPE skibases:

There are no "pores" in press sintered UHMWPE as some wax manufacturers
tell the people since 40 years.

(I guess the "pore-myth" comes from long ago, when ski had no PE base
and the gliding area consisted of the wood the ski were made of.
Wood is indeed porous in structure, so the wood cells (pores) could be
filled with wax)

Back to UHMWPE: As stated no "pores" are in the material.

The mechanism of waxabsorption in UHMWPE is simple: By bringing the
UHMWPE base material in contact with hot wax ( Paraffin) this "low
molecular PE"
goes into solution in the amorphos regions of the amorphous/crystalline
PE.[as the old chemists said: "similia similibus solvuntur" ].

By cooling down the skibase (on snow) there is a tendency of the wax to
migrate out of the PE matrix as the solubility is a function of
temperature.

I am working in R+D of skibases since 38 years and as stated above,
have never seen a "pore" in UHMWPE, but false theories are
unfortunately longliving!!

Have a nice day

best

Urs Geissbühler
Chemical Engineer
Research & Development Manager
IMS Kunststoff AG
Rütimoosstrasse 5
CH-3076 Worb
SWITZERLAND
tel: +41(0)31 838 0215
e-mail: urs.geissbuehler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.ims-plastics.com»;

Quite recently I read a non-Kuzmin article about waxing, I think from
one of the major companies or a major coach/wax tech, which describes
what waxing does chemically and points out that skis bases don't have
pores, but this is the term popularly used to describe the way wax gets
absorbed. I've been looking for the article, but haven't yet figured
out where I read it.

Gene

wrote:


At least his thesis opened the minds (and closed the "pores" myth).

His "scientific arguments" in the thesis do not stand even the most
basic scrutiny. The reason why the flaws did not go public is that the
kind of "research" Kuzmin does is in an area nobody really cares
about, and serious scientists never read his publications. I sent his
papers to several researchers at Stanford, UCSF, and Berkeley and they
could not believe this "research" was published. Very, very sad that
the public takes it seriously. But very common, too.

Google "sintered base pores" in Google Scholar and see for yourself
scanning electron photogrpahs of how sintered plastics are produced
and how the surfaces look like, published in peer-reviewed journals.
If you don't have access I can send you .pdfs.

Kuzmin thesis is certainly arguable from pure science point of view.

I see, so it's religion then? There is no such a thing as "pure" or
"non-pure" science.

The thing is that I can buy a "kuzmin" sickel for 70 Euros

A piece of sharpened steel for $70 Euros?

Since I have university access to most journals, and resarch is
usually sponsored by the tax payers, I am not feeling guilty about
having captured screen shots from a 1995 paper on sintered UHMWPE and
uploaded it to my Picasa page. The paper also explains, and gives
references, on how sintered bases are obtained (obviously, by fusing
UHMWPE particles at elevated temeratures).

http://picasaweb.google.com/runcycle...d_base_UHWMPE#

I tend to trust this, and other academic, sources because:

- they clearly state their methods with falsifiable statements (unlike
Kuzmin's thesis);
- they give references to studies published by previous researchers
(unlike Kuzmin's thesis);
- they do not use inflammatory language like "commercial
gummicks" (unlike Kuzmin's thesis which, to me, sounded more like a
cheap publicity attempt, rather than a scientific study).