Hi All,
My name is Jens from Germany. I invented the RF vulcanization for latex foam in 2004 and set-up already some factories in several countries.
If anyone has questions, especially related with RF vulcanization, just drop me a message.
Happy to help and to clarify some fairy tales.
Best,
Jens
1 Like
Hi Jens,
Thanks for sharing the information!
From what I understand, RF vulcanization uses electromagnetic radio frequency energy to cure latex, which seems to offer a faster curing process and more precise temperature control due to the localized heating. I’m curious to know, with this method, will the final product be just as durable as traditionally cured latex?
I’ve also read that RF vulcanization results in a more uniform structure because of the even energy distribution. Does this mean that, for example, a Dunlop mattress made with this method wouldn’t have the same “bottom-heavy” effect or sediment settling that is often seen in traditionally cured latex? Could this impact the support factor in any way?
If the results are more consistent and predictable, are there any downsides or trade-offs with this method?
Looking forward to hearing more about it!
Thanks,
Maverick
Hi Maverick,
Thanks for your questions.
Mattress and pillows cores made with RF passed all certifications, mattress cores for example, passed the LGA durability test with 99 points out of 100. I’m sure some reached 100, but I don’t have the copies right here.
Sorry, Maverick, have someone ever seen a mattress that has the “bottom-heaviness” you described? Would be curious to feel this myth myself, I read it from time to time, but never saw in reality.
In the old DUNLOP process, with HOBART mixers, large particles in the dispersions (due to the use of ball mills), long gelling times and, above all, long vulcanisation times, I can theoretically imagine slight settling due to gravity.
In my opinion, a good continuous foaming (machine), a good formulation and, of course, a good gelling are more important for the structure, not the method of vulcanization.
Since with RF we can reach the vulcanisation peak within 5 minutes and we use pearl mills to produce the dispersions (particle size 80% smaller than 4 µ), I did not heard such statements about products vulcanised with RF.
In summary, RF has a lot more advantages like less space consumption (<50%), lighter moulds, energy savings (electricity of course preferably from renewable energies) etc. pp.
Fell free to ask any additional questions.
Thanks again and kind regards,
Jens
If you are of the belief that Dunlop is not more dense at the bottom of the slap when produced, and I will take your word for it, why would the support factor be higher for dunlop than talalay? Are you saying that the structure of dunlop done with the RF method is closer to the airiness of Talalay, which is said to have a more uniform structure within each block coming out of the mold? I am trying to understand why everything one reads about the dunlop process states that the settlement of the particles cause it to be more dense at the bottom of the blocks coming out of the mold as compared to Talalay.
Well Maverick,
You said it yourself, it’s written quite often, but I’ve never seen any proof (suspension characteristic curve or similar). Thus, question is who brings this myth up?
Where does this statement come from that DUNLOP should therefore (??) have a higher “support factor”? How should that be related with the claim of different densities?
The structure of TALALAY is different (bigger bubbles because of vacuum), if people would find any difference in a blindtest on a finished mattress, remains to be seen.
So are you saying that when a block of Dunlop Latex is processed, the top of the block is the same density as the bottom? If this is the case, why do anything you read about it say that Dunlop is “bottom heavy” as they call it.
Is it written “everywhere”? Or some people just copied this myth like others, for example that one of “we put the pins in for better breathing”?
Once again: These people who are telling this, should come up with a proof, I will be happy to cross-check the real reasons.
So this is a random article. 1st one that came up.
https://optimizeyourbiology.com/dunlop-vs-talalay-latex
I am just trying understand if the sinking particles theory is a myth or real. And if real, so insignificant, it doesn’t matter with regards to its effect on the denseness of the block of dunlop that is produced.
Understand Maverick,
There is a lot of basic knowledge missing in the mattress industry about the production of latex foam. People trying to educate themselves by searching in the web. What they found is that people (like https://optimizeyourbiology.com/ ) repeating half-truths and fairy tales.
I checked the website you mentioned, there are some mistakes and above all claims that should not be allowed to go unchallenged.
I have only watched the video, not listened to it yet, but the test… Well, I’ll do the same for you and both latex foams will pass through equally good. 
PS: Just saw in a glance the second video. A comparison of TALALAY and DUNLOP made from a company which is producing - big surprise !! - TALALAY foam. 
1 Like
So in the process of manufacturing Dunlop, it appears there are significant advantages in using RF. Is it equipment cost factor as to why more manufacturers are not using this method, or is the industry gradually moving in that direction. Is there any short or longer term downsides where this method would not be the favored method? If so, would those downsides be significant or negligible. Have you written any articles (translated to english) I would love to read more about it.
Thanks,
Maverick
Hi Maverick,
Yes, the initial investmant is significant higher as with steam vulcanization but there are more advantages which lead at the end to higher profit and faster and high ROI, but please understand that detailed information about cannot be discussed in public.
In my opinion the latex foam industry is sleeping since 50 years, slowly she’s waking up and has a huge hangover.
Feel free to visit my company website www.latexfoam.technology or send a PM to js@latexfoam.technology.
1 Like