mit is a joke as far as i am concerned

WATER REPELLENT TREATMENTS AND MIT!

But first a testimonial received today.

A testimonial, since I know you enjoy them. My wife and I are full-time RVers. On the recommendation of my father-in-law, we bought 2 Nautilus Overbags for use in the motorhome. We've been using them every night for at least 4 1/2 years and they still pretty much look new and perform as good as they did when we first got them. I also really appreciate that they are so easy to clean. I have a sweater as well, but unfortunately I don't get much chance to use it because we like to keep the motorhome in comfy temperatures. And I've had the Chukka boots for over a year. I've hiked the Eastern Sierra and Rocky Mountains in spring and summer and the Sonoran Desert in winter. I had Danner boots with goretex previously, so I dealt with the cold/wet feet others have experienced. Your boots were comfortable right out of the box and continue to be great hikers! They keep my feet warm in cold temperatures and from overheating in hot temperatures. I don't usually wear the Lamilite socks but even then my feet are much more comfortable and drier than with the goretex lining. Thank you so much for making excellent, dependable products that I will continue to buy.
Best, JJ

Isn’t it amazing the number of people who confide in me about their experience with goretex. Well maybe not since they are all experiencing the same lack of performance.

MIT has an interest in making money. They have the Deshpande Center of Technological Innovation which supports research of products that can be patent-pending as I guess this new product is.

The EPA is in the process of revising regulations pertaining to the chemicals used to make water-repellent or water-resistant finishes for fabrics. The reason is because the chemicals that are currently being used have been shown to persist in the environment which I knew and accumulate in our bodies which is news to me. As far as I know these water repellent treatments have been around since the 1950’s. I have no knowledge of any deaths attributed to a water repellent accumulating in anyone’s body.

I do know chemical companies have been working on new chemical formulations for several years. I also believe these chemical companies have been successful making new formulations that do breakdown and do not have a negative effect on the environment. That further means these chemicals do not affect us humans.

Another bit of information that I read was new to me and when I questioned suppliers it was new to them. Where the information came from is a mystery to all of us.

There are two methods of applying a water repellent treatment; 1- a spraying method to one side of the material. This is done after the material has been laminated to a film or before lamination and then it is dried. The reason is simple; you do not want to laminate to the water repellent finish because once it breaks down there is delamination. gore had plenty of experience in the early days with this problem. 2- A bath method which means the fabric goes into a tub and is completely saturated and then dried. Now for the mystery process that no one has ever heard of; I quote; “air is blown through the fabric to reopen those pores”. When the fabric goes through the bath and is dried the chemical exists between the yarns which contribute to the water resistance but it also eliminates the vapor permeability so to restore the vapor permeability the chemical has to be blown away. Seems to me that will defeat the purpose of applying the water repellent treatment in the first place. Not one person I know in the industry has ever heard of this being done. the MIT geniuses must know something we in the industry do not know!!!

The pores are the minute spaces between the yarns. What the MIT group does not know is that the fabric with a water repellent treatment will see the pores opened due to movement of the fabric while it is worn and even more so when it is laundered. Ultimately if the blowing process does exist it has no value. Like I said nobody that I know in the textile business ever heard of the blowing process.

The MIT group has yet to finalize a formula. As it states in the article headline; “That leaves a gap to be filled if researchers "can" find safe substitutes”. MIT has yet to find the safe substitute!

I could be wrong but I think MIT is populated with opportunists. They probably get their funding from the government and they use that money in an effort to develop products that they can then sell. Just imagine the value of a completely safe long lasting water repellent treatment being used by all of the dyeing and finishing plants worldwide.

I have been using pure finish fabric for years and have never had problems brought to my attention with respect to water problems. All of the Supplex I have and still use does have a water repellent treatment applied to it and I suspect it breaks down easily with use, but again I have never had any problems.

Water repellent treatments are used for fabrics that are used to make outerwear garments. If the garments are insulated then water from rain fall is of minimal concern and if the garment is a Wiggy garment insulated with Lamilite it is of no concern.

As for MIT, they will never get this project successfully accomplished because as I have noted they have no knowledge of the textile business.