Document jgkEvvex66mqRpadBpQkYxvNZ

cc:form DC oooie.ni L. S. Dymitro H. Gosselink DANA CORPORATION Victor Divisions INTRA-COMPANY COMMUNICATION subject Victopac 100 Thickness Control date December 2, 1969 to Steve Lillis Your letter of November 18, requests information regard ing our ability to make Victopac 100 to a tolerance of +/.0025, .0020, .0015. I must state that we cannot at this time hold gage in these ranges. The best that vve can do on a pro duction basis is +/- .004. It is true that vve are supplying some material to Chicago at present which is held better than +/- .004 but this is done on a selected b'asis, material out of gage is diverted to Robinson use. Victopac-100 would not be a material that could be used at Robinson due to--coat-even if de viation authority would be .allowed. Your letter points out that the Viton Elastomer in Victop'a'c 100 costs 20 times as much as the Neoprenes used in the njore stan'dard Victopac material. Steve Cerve sent a memo to G; Rrown in early October quot ing a sheet cost of $18.26 per 62J x 56J sheet. This was in response to a memo from George which gave no indication of gage restriction other than the standard +/- .005. The cost of this was based on results experienced in project 84407, formula number 839. Again, no gage restrictions. I must point out that if a tighter tolerance is required, out of gage shTeets . must be paid for by .the customer one.way or another. Robinson cannot absorb the costs of rejected sheets, nor can we absorb the cost of centers or ends trim. This is true for .031/.037 which your letter states you are presently specifying (?) . In affect I submit that the customer will have to pay for the full sheet/full batch, regardless of yield as there is no other outlet for the materials I presume salvage through refiberizing would also be question mark. I know of no experi ments or formulas which establish that refiberized material may be used. I would also comment that maintaining refiberized Viton Victopac in our present equipment would introduce the probability of contamination with other refiberized material. The results of a discussion at Robinson regarding a method to hold gage as required suggests at least two major needs: 1. Rebuild mills and run in and back out devices, new bearings, ratcheting devices, etc. 2. Automatic feeding equipment to feed mix Into the mills. ' . (continued) DANA-295 VPD-91-0001070 Page (2) Letter to Steve Lillis December 2, 1969 Gage as well as density seem to be a function of method and soeed of feed, (presently performed manually) and mechan ical tightness of the mill. This would cost a great deal of money but I cannot estimate a figure at this time. Investi gations into the affect of wet or dry mix on gage would also be required. It is our opinion that this too plays a part in gage control. How much is this capability worth to us? What dollars of profit will it generate? What is forecasted demand? Would one mill be enough? Should we consider purchase of a small mill (12" or 24") for the purpose of close tolerance con trol, who in the industry offers a +/- .002 mill sheet in the 60" sheet size? . J Have I answer HD/bkl C.C.: . '.V. SheeharA G. Brown C. Hayden M. Blaho S. Cerve G. Stohler L. Smagatz J. Feldmann J. Zeitz VPD-91-0001071