Re: Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence

"frederick" <lost@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1178340486.585243@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year
DPR
> >> from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room
wall.
> >>   But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer than
an
> >> ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.
> >
> > And that is where you may be mistaken. As others have pointed out
already,
> > that would ONLY be the case IF the dominant mode of failure was under
test,
> > or at least common to both cases. This CANNOT be assumed to always be
so. In
> > fact the Epson case makes that quite obvious.
> >
> Of couse I "may" be mistaken.

Glad you admit it then.

> Did you read the bit in my original post where I said:
> "there's nothing better than accelerated testing to go on"
> If you can suggest a mode of failure that Wilhelm is not aware of and
> does not allow for, then I'm sure he'd love to hear from you.
> If not, then you're at risk of being dismissed as a scaremongering
> conspiracy theorist, or a Luddite.

Did you read what others have already written? If not then you are at risk
of being dismisssed as an "osterich", and unable to read or comprehend
there
may be other issues besides exposure to light or even heat.
And the "Luddite" would be you if you think you already know everything
there possibly is to know about archival permanance of inkjet prints!

MrT.