It is a new concept, but it is very cost effective , though direct cost may be looking high,
SOME TIPS ABOUT OMREY DYEING
This information is sent by our friend Mr. S.K.Sharma ji.
It is very useful information for biginers , Textile_Lab_Tests.doc
Jute is well known as a very cheap fiber, and its employment in textile industry is consequently both extensive and always increasing. Accompanying this increase is a corresponding one in the amount of old waste jute, which can be employed for the manufacture of paper.
Up to the present time, only very little use has been made of jute for the manufacture of thread and the finer fabrics, because the difficulty of bleaching the fiber satisfactorily has proved a very serious hindrance to its improvement by chemical means. All the methods hitherto proposed for bleaching jute are so costly that they can scarcely be made to pay; and, moreover, in many cases, the jute is scarcely bleached, and loses considerably in firmness and weight, owing to the large quantities of bleaching agents which have to be applied.
In consequence of this difficulty, the enormous quantities of jute scraps, which are always available, are utilized in paper making almost entirely for the production of ordinary wrapping paper, which is, at the best, of medium quality. In the well known work of Hoffmann and Muller, the authors refer to the great difficulty of bleaching jute, and therefore recommend that it be not used for making white papers.
Messrs. Leykam and Tosefothal have succeeded in bleaching it, and rendering the fiber perfectly white, by a new process, simple and cheap (which we describe below), so that their method can be very advantageously employed in the paper industry.
The jute fiber only loses very little of its original firmness and weight; but, on the other hand, gains largely in pliability and elasticity, so that the paper made from it is of great strength, and not only resists tearing, but especially crumpling and breaking.
The jute may be submitted to the process in any form whatever, either crude, in scraps, or as thread or tissue.
The material to be bleached is first treated with gaseous chlorine or chlorine water, in order to attack the jute pigment, which is very difficult to bleach, until it takes an orange shade. After having removed the acids, etc., formed by this treatment, the jute is placed in a weak alkaline bath, cold or hot, of caustic soda, caustic potash, caustic ammonia, quicklime, sodium or potassium carbonate, etc., or a mixture of several of these substances, which converts the greatest part of the jute pigment, already altered by the chlorine, into a form easily soluble in water, so that the pigment can be readily removed by a washing with water. After this washing the jute can be bleached as easily as any other vegetable fiber in the ordinary manner, by means of bleaching powder, etc., and an excellent fibrous material is obtained, which can be made use of with advantage in the textile and paper industries.
The application of the process may be illustrated by an example:
One hundred kilos. of waste jute scraps are first of all treated in the manner usually employed in the paper industry; 15 per cent. of quicklime is added, and they are treated for 10 hours at a pressure of 1½ atmospheres. The scraps are then freed from water by means of a hydro-extractor, or a press, and finally saturated with chlorine in a gas chamber for 24 hours or less, according to the requirements of the case. Every 100 kilos. of jute requires 75 kilos. of hydrochloric acid (20° B.) and 20 kilos. of manganese peroxide (78-80 per cent.).
The jute then takes an orange color, and is subsequently washed in a tank, a kilo. of caustic soda being added per 100 kilos. of jute; this amount of alkali is sufficient to dissolve the pigment, which colors the water flowing from the washer a deep brown. After washing, the jute can be completely bleached by the use of 5-7 kilos. of bleaching powder per 100 kilos. of jute. - Mon. de la Teinture.
Feminine Sanitary Napkin, is not a fashion, It is required to be fit . As it prevent allergy in the inner part of ladies. Factors to be consider when select suitable sanitary napkins.doc So it is very important that every girl or women must understand how to select the napkin. it is what so ever i could understood from the discussion with different girls during survey. If any one has any more opinion . pls share to save feminine .
Well, first off, let me clarify something. The terms “Charged Cotton” and “Dri-Fit” are not so much specific technologies as they are product line names that have been trademarked by each company:
Under Armour Charged Cotton Trademark
Nike Dri-Fit Trademark
As you can see, the assigned trademarks span a wide variety of product types including caps, dress, headbands, pants, shorts, oh and of course- t-shirts.
Companies create product brands so they become easily recognizable by consumers. Think about it, if you had to ask “Hey, I’m looking for that Under Armour product that is made of cotton and spandex, oh and it’s supposed to be moisture wicking too”, that would be a little tough for consumers to wrap their heads around. Instead, companies create product line categories and give them easily identifiable names.
So this annoys me a little, but I believe the apparel market goes a little too far with the whole “technology” thing. They throw out these crazy terms, build up a bunch of hype about it, and then the consumer has to figure out what it all means. It’s pretty damn confusing.
Case-in-point: “Moisture Wicking”. Manufacturers started promoting moisture wicking undershirts a couple years ago, and my site got bombarded with traffic from people trying to figure out what the benefits of moisture wicking undershirts were, if any. Not surprisingly, today I don’t see the same amount of emphasis from companies touting their undershirts as moisture wicking, because I believe most of it was short-lived hype.
Now, I’m not trying to piss off those companies who make moisture wicking undershirts, I’m just trying to illustrate my point of technology hype.
No doubt, there is a good amount of technology that goes into the creation of some clothing products, but I’d like to see a little more balance here and less consumer confusion.
Of course, if the products didn’t sound cool, we probably wouldn’t be interested in learning about or buying them, so a part of me understands and appreciates the need for companies to do this.
After a bunch of research over the last couple of days, here’s what I came up with:
Under Armour Charged Cotton – This clothing line consist of mens, boys, and womens t-shirts, shorts, and pants. In most all cases, the fabric blend consists of 95% TransDRY treated cotton and 5% spandex. TransDRY is actually a product from Cotton Inc. (trademark filed 10/2007) and it’s a treatment that is applied to cotton to give it moisture wicking properties. So, in essence, cotton treated or made with TransDRY will not absorb moisture like untreated cotton.
One part of the Under Armour marketing doesn’t set well with me. In most of their marketing, they say this:
We took Mother Nature’s most perfect fabric and supercharged it with our signature moisture transport system to create the world’s first true performance cotton.
If this is a Cotton Inc. product, what the hell is Under Armour’s “signature moisture transport system”? I’m thinking this is all hype and, from my point of view, it’s really misleading if all they did was apply TransDRY to their own cotton fabric.
If they did more, great. Maybe someone from Under Armour can email me and give me the specifics so I can add it here.
Nike Dri-Fit Cotton – The Dri-Fit clothing line consists of a whole lot of mens and women’s products. In fact, the Nike website says there are 1,014 Dri-Fit products available. When I searched for Dri-Fit Cotton products, that narrowed down the list to 7 items, and they were only for women. It looks like Nike did offer a Dri-Fit Cotton shirt for men, but it doesn’t appear to be generally available any longer.
In looking at the Dri-Fit Cotton line, it shows that the fabric blend across all products was 62% cotton (5% organic)/34% polyester/4% spandex.
When Nike refers to Dri-Fit, they describe it as a high-performance, microfiber, polyester fabric that wicks sweat away from the body and moves it to the fabric surface, where it evaporates. What isn’t clear, is what is special about the polyester to make it any different or better than any other polyester? Also, in looking at the Nike website, the Dri-Fit product line includes a variety of polyester fabric blends (100% polyester, 60% cotton/40% polyester, etc.)
I might be missing something here, but it looks as though Dri-Fit might simply be Nike’s main polyester fabric, so anytime it uses that polyester in a clothing item, it becomes a Dri-Fit item.
If you distill all that crap above, it really boils down to this: Moisture Management-treated Cotton vs. Polyester/Blend
Which is better? Well, I assume that is really subjective after it’s all said and done.
Which will perform better? That depends on your definition of “perform”. I suspect there is little noticeable difference between the two.
Which will feel better on the skin? I suspect the Under Armour Charged Cotton tee will feel a little softer, more natural feeling on the skin because there’s no polyester in it – but that’s just a guess.
If anyone has experience with Dri-Fit Cotton T-Shirts, please feel free to chime in. Also, if you do have one and are open to going out and picking up an Under Armour Charged Cotton tee to compare the two, be sure to email me or post your comments below.