COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON ITEM 1920 SYNTHETIC FILM FOR DIELECTRIC USE 29TH JANUARY 1959

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100140003-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 15, 1999
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: February 10, 1959
• Content Type: MIN

? Approved For Release4o99/09/16: CIA-RDP62-00647A000100`' 0003-4
C 0 N F I D E N T I A L
February 10th, 1959. COCOM Document No., 341.20J2
COORDINATING COIL ITTEE
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
ON
ITLM 1220: SYl'ZTHETIC FILL FOR DIEL]3CTRIC USE
29th January, 1959.
Present: Belgium(Luxembourg), Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States-.
References: COCOM Documents Nos. 3019.20/1 and 3419.20/1.
1. The CHAIRivi.AN asked for the views of Delegations on the text pro-
posed by the French Delegation on the 16th January as an amendment of the
German Delegation's proposal in COC0LI Document No. 3019.20/1.
2. The GERLAN Delegate said he could accept the French proposal.
3. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate said that his authorities could accept
the amendment of the existing definition in the way proposed by the French
Delegation in paragraph 2 of COCOM Document No. 3419.20/1. They did not,
however, subscribe to the remarks set out in the last five lines of that para-
graph, as at the present stage they were unable to accept the implications of
the French expert's statement concerning P.V.C., Teflon and Hostaflon.
4. The UNITED STATES Delegate said that his authorities had had
difficulty in completing their study of the French revision of the German
proposal in the short time at their disposal. On the basis of information
cabled to Washington by the Delegation at the close of the meeting of the 16th
January, however, they believed that the effect of the change would be to
decontrol all dielectric film in which the dielectric characteristics changed
as the temperature changed. If that wore the case, it would be tantamount to
decontrolling all dielectric film. If that would be the effect, the United
States authorities could not accept the change of definition. If that would
not be the effect, the experts in Washington would study the matter further
and expeditiously. The Delegate said he would welcome the views of the French
Delegation.
5. The FRENCH Delegate said that he would ask his expert to reply.
The expert explained that the last two sentences of his statement on the 16th
January were only intended to explain what was meant by "dielectric charac-
teristics". He pointed out that when a dielectric was submitted to an alter-
nating electric field, high frequency and low frequency, it underwent losses
caused by the electric field which changed its own characteristics. Certain
dielectrics could be used at ambient temperatures of about 10011 C but their
functioning as a dielectric in an alternating high and low-frequency field rais
them to higher temperatures and on that account certain dielectrics lost not
only their dielectric characteristics but also their insulating characteristics.
No dielectric, especially in the temperature range between - 45? and + 100? C.
was capable of maintaining all its characteristics - e.g. those-possessed at
25? C.
6. The GERi'WAN Delegate suggested that it might facilitate matters for
the United States Delegation if in place of this highly technical definition
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100140003-4
 'Approved FQr Release 19W09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100140 -4
---? - 2 - COCOM Document No. 3419.20/2
the Committee could consider the following wording: "capable of being used for
electronic components covered by Item 1560".
7. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate said that he could agree with the view
of the German Delegate that the control over the foils covered by Item 1920
should be related to the kinds of capacitors embargoed under the definition of
Item 1560.
8. The UNITED STATES Delegate agreed that this appeared logical. He
wished to point out to the French expert, with due deference, that what he had
said was that his authorities believed the effect of the revision would be to
decontrol all dielectric film in which the dielectric characteristics changed
as the tompQrature changed.
9? The French expert explained that when a condenser, for example,
was manufactured, in order to maintain its characteristics only between - 45'
and + 100?, as specified in the definition, its dielectric could be raised
to temperatures nigh; r than this temperature range. This was the case for
condensers functioning on alternating current, z;rhore a certain quantity of
energy was dissipated into the dielectric itself. Supposing that an embargoed
dielectric were used, such as Teflon in thin shoots, manufactured in such a
way as to maintain its dielectric rigidity (which was not easy, from the
technical point of view) the result would be a material capable of being used
at 100?C. Condensers designed in relatively small sizes would have a dielec-
tric strength varying in proportion to the electric field. The service life-
time in the case of Teflon would be longer and for a dielectric film of a
lower grade would be shorter. Perhaps it would be possible to work out a
definition which would take account of the serlrice lifetime of the dielectric.
10. The C.EiMRi;i N asked for views as to the proposal by the German
Delegate to add to the present definition of Item 1920 the words "and capable
of being used for electronic components covered by Item 1560".
11. The NETHERLANDS Delegate said that, as his authorities seemed
hesitant as regards the French amendment, he had asked for technical explana-
tions. Those had not yet arrived, but he felt that as the now German proposal
seemed to get rid of the difficulties, he could accept it ad referendum.
12. The J.LP4NESE Delegate said that the new German proposal was very
easy to understand and ho was in favour of it.
13. The FRENCH Delegate pointed out that the French text of Item 1920
referred to "papier condensatcur", whereas the English text spoke of "conden-
ser tissue". He tbaight that there wore possibilities of misunderstanding here.
In his view, "condenser tissue" should be translated by the words "dielectriquo
pour condensatours". If that correction wore made, the French Delegation would
be able to accept the German proposal.
14. The J, PLITESE and NETHLRLLNDS Delegations accepted the German
proposal, and the ITL.LIAN and UNITED KINGDOM Delegations undertook to report,,
15. The CI j IRK N said that a Corrigendum to the French text of Item
1920 would be issued, end that the question of changing the definition in
the way proposed by the German Delegate at the present meeting would be
discussed again on the 12th February, when he hoped unanimous agreement would
be possible.
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100140003-4