Drying rough turned bowls quickly.

Thank you John.

Dave Smith, Longview, WA

>Hi John,

If I remember right you are one of those propeller heads.(In the spirit of James Burke.) You obviously have a good understanding of the chemistry involved. I am sure you are one of the people who suggested on a forum years ago that it was the surfactant in the LDD that was doing the work. One has to be careful what one says on a forum, somebody might actually read the message. I am kind of a seat of the pants tinkerer that is more interested in the end result than in figuring out how. I learn just enough to be dangerous but not quite enough to kill myself.

Thank you for your explanation of how the alcohol could work to speed up the drying process. There are some people who don't believe it works because I didn't have a scientific explanation. Feel free to interject any theory you may have on this process.

Dave Smith

Wondering if I am a propeller head too because my head is spinning in Longview, WA.

Re: Mechanism & cold (long)

Shawn - in ID

>If left to sit long enough, their will be no harmful remnants of the ethanol. The longer the bowl soaks, the longer you would want to make sure it sits.

Re: Mechanism & cold (long)

Shawn - in ID

>Since the bowl has little water content compared to the large bath of ethanol, I said replace. Really it is simply a dilution effect. If the bowl is left long enough, you will have a homogenous solution of water/ethanol with concentrations dependent on the orginal volumes minus evaporation. This procedure will not remove all the water from the bowl unless you move the bowl over many times to pure ethanol but it is apparently sufficient with even one soaking to give the desired results.

Re: Some thoughts (no data)

Shawn - in ID

>Hi John,

Right on. That is in fact the only plausible reason for the soap soaking method working. However, soap will not penetrate cell walls at a rate even vaguely close to ethanol and, as you point out, it leaves all the soap behind. Moreover, the soap doesn't 'compete for space' in the wood as completely as ethanol.

Re: Mechanism & cold (long)

Ron in Drums PA

>You are right on target with this Shawn, I was thinking the same.

Did you ever mix shellac from flakes and in the fresh batch did you ever notice a gel on the bottom? That gel is caused by water that the alcohol absorbed from the air.

I'm "Guessing" that sooner or later the alcohol will become "Exhausted", that is, to much water in the mix. Disposal may become a problem at this point.

Also any type of alcohol should work just as well, but remember Rubbing (isopropyl) Alcohol in 30% water to begin with. I would also suggest saving the Jack Daniels for medicinal proposes.

Re: Mechanism & cold (long)

Shawn - in ID

>Dinyar,

You are so right. We can test a method all we want, until we figure out a mechanism we can not really test the process because we don't have an understanding of how it should or shouldn't work under various conditions - making optimizing the process a hit or miss event. I have been using ethanol (and other chemicals) to dehydrate tissue (muscle, skin, organs, etc.) for years - physiologists have been doing this for centuries. We put the tissue in grades of ethanol (e.g., 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 100%) - the grades are because rapid changes distort the walls of the cells and we are going to look at them under the microscope - so we do things slowly. In this case, straight to 100% should be fine. We are really just speeding up the drying process by removing water (diluting it with ethanol) faster than the water would normally shift through the wood and evaporate...a lot faster because ethanol moves so easily through the material. In the method described above, only some of the water will be removed but it is apparently enough to reduce the likelihood of cracking - noting that additional wrapping techniques are required still. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that if the bowl were moved into fresh 100% ethanol every 12-18 hours for a week+, the bowl would have very little water content left (note: thinner walls than the usual 10% of diameter would be better here; thicker walls = longer soaking) and the bowls would rarely crack even if left unwrapped - the only question would be if rapid cooling and temperature shifting might induce any cracking since ethanol evaporation causes cooling - but after a week+ there may be other unwanted side effects. After posting this, I'm guessing someone will try it and we'll hear what happens.

I never understood the LDD methods. The only plausible mechanism is the same as described here. But, it is nowhere near as efficient as any of the -ols (ethanol, methanol, etc.) in rapidly penetrating material and diluting the water. Plus, you are left with soap residue that won't come out. Further, soap doesn't actually compete directly for space with water like the -ols (long explanation avoided).

Yep

Shawn - in ID

>

Kudos to Dave...

Shawn - in ID

>Dinyar,

Though I rambled about the science behind this method and some musings about optimizing, long soaks, refreshing the bath, etc. I want to say: 1) Dave has done a very impressive job of working this out and 2) he has probably hit on the most (or at least nearly the most) time and cost efficient method. My ideas of 100% ethanol and changing baths and long soaks are for testing the limits of the process but they would be impractical to use every day both for time and cost. GOOD JOB DAVE !!!!!!!!

Re: Drying rough turned bowls quickly.

DaveMacLuskie

>I was just gonna ask about kitty litter buckets :) the seal up fairly tightly, and I can't imagine the alcohol having an impact on the plastic, is there? (recycledable #2 or #5 is what I have I think).

Re: Methanol is dangerous stuff.

Fog Tanner

>Interesting useage. Methonal is one of the primary ingediants in model airplane fuel, nitromethane and synthetic oil being the rest. I've been mixing my own fuel for over 28 years, which means handeling all three. Since I was a chem major before I got into computers, I never play with any chemicals and I don't really have any problems handleing methonal. I look at the dust from turning as more injurious to my health than the chemicals I use.

If you look at the chemicals that are injected into the food we eat, the MSG thats added for flavoring, what's in the water we drink and the air we breath, its a wonder we live past 40. So rather than get stress induced cancer from worrying about that, I am just going to concentrate on that next piece of wood and how many shavings I can get from it....

Re: If I may,.....

Andrew Hilton

>Whoa, where did THAT come from, Dominic? You take several questions regarding a process and a declaration of a "working protocol" (with very few actual facts to back it up ... YET, I am sincerely hoping) as a personal insult or an implication of some compaign to discredit those making those claims? I guess we're all suppose to just nod our heads and not question it? Not try to understand it or get more details? Amazing, but not surprising for some.

I did get what information I needed from your post, though. I'll take my questions and the reasons why I asked them in my previous post direct to David as he does, indeed, appear to have the information from the test group himself.

Whether he decides to share them with me is entirely a different matter. Depending on whether he's going to publish them somewhere or if he just simply doesn't like my "tone", or whatever other reason is up to him to share what he has or not. I would have no hard feelings toward him one way or another regardless of the reasons. Usually, it's not a problem to at least ask a person.

Of course, with SOME people questions are implied insults. How can we live that way? I'll keep asking and questioning, regardless. Be offended if you like. I can't do anything about that.

Peace, Dominic. Take a breath.

Re: Is 4% methanol dangerous?

Al Crandall

>The denatured alcohol I bought today states that it contains less than 4% methanol. Is this going to be a problem for me or the end users who might have food in contact with the bowl? Knowing how fussy some consumers are about the safety of the finish used on food bowls maybe we should not advertise that the bowls were soaked in denatured alcohol.

Re: Mechanism & cold (long)

Andrew Hilton

>Nice exchange, folks.

The basic idea of cracking due to moisture loss (let's keep this VERY simple and just assume no other factors involved) is that of uneven drying.

It could be uneven drying along the length of the surface of a piece of wood. Not too bad of problem, usually, for us but still causes stresses in the wood. This is why kiln operators and kiln designers/makers (myself included) do a lot of work in making sure all surfaces are evenly presented to the heat/moisture/etc source. We want it as even as possible.

It could be uneven drying at the surface compared to the inner parts of the wood. This is where thick pieces of wood have more problems than thin ones. With thin ones, the distance between the center of the thickness of wood to the surface wood is short enough to allow the moisture from the inside to be (relatively or at least enough) released the same as the surface moisture. It's when you set up a big enough difference between the moisture loss on the surface and the inside that cracks develop. This is also where having an even (but also thick) thickness of wood helps. There are less stresses pulling/pushing around with differences in the moisture moving from the inside to the outside.

Ideally, we would want to remove all (again, this is relative as we don't really want to get rid of ALL of it ... major problems if we do) of the moisture from the surface AND the inside at a rate quick enough to not set up differences (explained above) causing cracking. It also has to be even across the entire length of the piece of wood.

OK. With that very basic situation causing cracks (again, this is just one of a host of causes), let's look at this alcohol application method....

Assuming that the alcohol displaces much (or at least enough) of the water in the piece of wood, we still have the problem of drying the wood once we take the wood out of the alcohol bath. The only thing different is that we're "drying" the alcohol out of it instead of the water. Alcohol evaporates much quicker than water. Alcohol also moves quicker through wood than water. Is it moving and evaporating from all points (along the length and from surface to depths) at a rate sufficiently quick to not set up those fatal differences causing cracks? Are there problems with "sucking out the guts" of a piece of wood so quickly here? The wood structure is still there though. I wonder about the strength of the wood being affected? I can't see why right now ... but that doesn't preclude some study here.

Why would it be necessary to cover the top of the (bowl in this case) piece of wood to prevent the cracks? Dealing purely with evaporating ("drying") of the alcohol here ... it should be sufficiently quick from all points in the bowl to not make a difference. Of course, evaporation rates depends greatly on air circulation and heat.

Perhaps that's the problem. The bowls are faced down (tops faced down) so maybe there was more air circulation along the tops (actually, it's the bottom of the bowl) or the lights in the shop were making the evaporate rates on the top quicker than on the bottom (actually, the tops of the bowls or the "bowl" of the bowl) and this difference was sufficient to cause the cracks to develop. I wonder if having a way (other than to limit the evaporation on one side by covering it) to even out the heat and circulation between the top and bottom of the bowl will take care of this? Or is it going to be real-world-wise making that much of a difference from just covering one side of the bowl with something?

Just some thoughts.

Forgive my enthusiasm

Dominic Greco in Richboro, PA

>

to "defend a friend's honor" (even though it turns out it wasn't even required). I must have misinterpreted your post.

But honestly, try reading your post as if it had come from someone else you might see how it could be interpreted that way. Plain text has the annoying habit of suffering from interpretation by those reading it.

Guess I'm just one of those who gets upset if I think a friends accomplishments are being slighted. That obviously wasn't the case.

Re: Is 4% methanol dangerous?

John Trant (Baltimore/WashDC)

>No, methanol is quite volitile so there will be no problems with residuals. The methanol is primarily added to "denature" the ethanol to make it inedible. That way, the manufacturer does not need to deal with liquor taxes.

4% methanol is minute enough to be less of a problem than the ethanol itself. Remember, all alcohols are poisonous; ethanol is just the least toxic. Use proper respect when handling all solvents, including alcohols ... minimize exposures, protect delicate tissues (mucus membranes, eyes, etc), do not allow vapors to accumulate, etc.

John

Re: Thanks

Al Crandall

>

It's the music

Tom Sweeney - Coatesville PA

>Mike,

Studies have shown that certain classical & especially baroque music helps the brain function better. Course I'm not sure what type of music turns out volcanoes, fireworks and strange creatures ;-}

Re: Mechanism & cold (long)

Ben

>Shawn & Dave,

The reason that LDD works or has some success is that there is some Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) in the soap. I checked several brand not all list it and many have no real list of ingredients on them but I sure most all use it. Dow Chemical list LDD as one of many uses of PEG. Conservators of waterlogged wood have been using PEG for decades to conserve sunken ships. The process is well documented on why and how it works. It has it own list of drawbacks. PEG is very hydroscopic and it displaces the water in the wood cells with PEG. The wood cells are then bulked up with the PEG and when removed and allowed to dry the wood cells cannot collapse, No cracking or warping.

Lee Valley Tolls sells PEG

Part # 05K98.05 and 05K98.01

Dave,

I think your work is great, keep researching the process.

A question you might want to look into, what do the wood cells look like before and after they are dry. Have the cells collapsed, this may have an affect on how the wood looks or should have looked and its strength. Also Dave I wonder if bulking the wood with Polyvinyl Alcohol would have any added effect. Polyvinyl alcohol is only about $10 a pound.

Best Wishes,

Ben

Email me I�d be interested in talking more about the process.

Medicinal Jack?

BubbaBob

>Last time I tried that (30 yrs ago) Jack kicked my butt. Looking at a Jack label has made me nauseus ever since.

BubbaBob

Re: Mechanism & cold (long)

Andrew Hilton

>And another thought crossed my mind....

Would a vaster evaporative fluid than alcohol (such as Xylene) work faster since it *might* enter the cells quicker and delve deeper (may work better on thicker pieces of wood too?) into the wood as well as exit (evaporate) sooner than the alcohol? Of course, Xylene and Toluene, etc. have their own sets of poisonous/health problems but what's a few brain cells and extended hospital visits for but for science and being impatient woodturners?

Re: Forgive my enthusiasm

Andrew Hilton

>I can certainly respect coming to the defense of a friend or even yourself when they feel it is warranted.

It's the fact that it was even felt warranted due to simple questions being asked ... due to the fact that some scrutiny was being placed on a statement of "this works" with very very little to back it up ... due to the fact that an immediate wall was brought up to dispel questions deemed too invasive or having too much scrutiny placed into the public.

It was as if you were waiting to pounce upon any scrutiny of this process and those who presented (or even indirectly involved such as the "testers") it here in this forum. Scrutiny and questions and healthy, scientific disbelief are GOING TO HAPPEN. For some, that's not a good thing. For others, it is.

I feel it is because it makes things better to question. Not to belittle or demean or make personal attacks. Just to question and try to come to understand it so that we might learn from it and use it ourselves. Just because "you" or "he" or "they" say something, doesn't mean I'm going to believe it. I'll certainly listen. But I'm certainly going to question it just as I would hope and expect everyone to question what I say.

Re: Mechanism & cold (long)

Shawn - in ID

>Hi Andrew,

Don't know specifically about toluene. Xylene is what we call a de-waxer though that isn't exactly right. Bottom line: it is hydrophobic - so, it won't penetrate the wet wood very well. It is also a tremendous disposal problem and has some aweful affects on the central nervous system.

Thanks for the kind comments

Dave Smith, Longview, WA

>If anyone wants any information on the alcohol drying procedure don't hesitate to email me. I welcome information about your first couple bowls completed using the alcohol drying method. I plan to compile an article about the results of widespread usage of the process. Pictures would be most welcome. Please advise me if I may use your name and or pictures on my web site or in an article for publication. If I don't get overwhelmed with data I will make the information available in some form.

Things to include:

Type of wood: including, burl, crotch, etc.

Type of turning: bowl, closed form, hollow form, etc.

Approximate size:

Wall thickness:

Type of alcohol used: leave blank if denatured ethanol used.

Length of time soaked:

Length of time dried:

Finished thickness:

Type finish:

Overall outcome: modern art not on purpose, kindling wood, acceptable, etc.

Optional:

Relative moisture of blank: fresh very wet, some what wet, mostly dry

Deviated from procedure: Didn't wrap, waxed outside, put it in the chicken coop to dry, etc.

Dave Smith

Blessed with a lot of internet friends in Longview, WA.

Re: Thanks for the kind comments

Andrew Hilton

>This is interesting, Dave.

So, you've changed your mind in the past ~2 hours concerning doing a study and now gathering data that you did not before? You said to me in no uncertain terms in your email that you thought that additional study was "moot" and saw no reason to be involved in more study of the process because you got the results you wanted out of it.

Also, you're planning now to expand the future article you told me about just a bit ago from a "trials and tribulations" in your discovery type of one to something along the lines of a study with independent data now?

I think it's great if you are, indeed, going to gather data now and write up an informative article regarding the process and some independent data with comparative tests along with it.

What changed in the past ~2 hours?

A couple of questions *LINK*

Paul Porter in Phoenix, AZ

>Hi all,

Does the wood float in the alcohol? If so, how do you keep it submerged? (rock, barbel, etc.)

And where do you purchase denatured alcohol?


My Website