As a result of all of the discussion from my last posting on this subject, I
took another section of the Walnut Tree Root and cut it in half. I turned two
bowls out of the two halves. Each had a wall thickness of 1/2” and diameters of
less than 5”. I soaked one in fresh denatured alcohol for two hours and wrapped
both in brown grocery sack leaving the hollowed part of the bowl open to the
air. I am very surprised at how similar the weight loss ran. I’m presenting the
results here for your information:

Date Alcohol Unsoaked
Soaked
5-17 225 grams 215 grams
5-18 200 grams 205 grams
5-19 165 grams 170 grams
5-20 150 grams 154 grams
5-21 125 grams 140 grams
5-22 115 grams 125 grams
5-23 105 grams 115 grams
5-24 100 grams 105 grams
5-25 100 grams 100 grams
5-26 95 grams 95 grams

In nine days the alcohol soaked bowl lost 58 percent of its original weight and
the unsoaked bowl lost 56 percent of its original weight. The percentage of
weight loss each day was higher for the alcohol soaked bowl than for the
unsoaked bowl. However, it was not as great as I had expected. Until the very
end, the alcohol soaked bowl lost weight faster, but as they reached the end of
the drying cycle it slowed down to almost the same as the unsoaked bowl. Another
interesting point, the alcohol soaked bowl weighed 10 grams more when the test
began, but both bowls weighed the same after completely drying. Their weight has
remained the same from 5-26 to 5-28 indicating that both bowls dry.

The unsoaked bowl warped somewhat more than the alcohol soaked bowl. On the
alcohol soaked bowl, the finished size at the rim was: slightly over 5” in the
grain direction and 4-3/4” across the grain. The foot measured 2-1/4” in the
direction of the grain and slightly over 2” across the grain. On the unsoaked
bowl, the finished size of the rim was: 4-7/8” in the grain direction and
4-1/2” across the grain. The foot measured 2-3/8” in the direction of the grain
and slightly over 2” across the grain. Neither of the bowls cracked.

I still believe that alcohol soaking offers some advantages and from previous
uses it has kept wood from cracking that probably would have cracked. However,
this is the first side by side test that I've made of Dave Smith's drying
protocol. From this test, it appears that the alcohol soak did not help very
much.

Now, all of you people who lambasted me on my other post, can say "I told you
so."

Fred Holder
http://www.fholder.com

Harry,

The first weight was after soaking. That may be why it weighed more than the
unsoaked bowl to begin with. I normally soak the bowls for 24 hours, but Dave
Smith said that two hours is enough, so that was what I used for this test since
it was fresh new alcohol.

Fred Holder
http://www.fholder.com

In article s.com, Harry Pye
says...

As a result of all of the discussion from my last posting on this subject, I
took another section of the Walnut Tree Root and cut it in half. I turned two
bowls out of the two halves. Each had a wall thickness of 1/2” and diameters of
less than 5”. I soaked one in fresh denatured alcohol for two hours and wrapped
both in brown grocery sack leaving the hollowed part of the bowl open to the
air. I am very surprised at how similar the weight loss ran. I’m presenting the
results here for your information:

Fred,

I have been using the alcohol soaking method for over a year and I agree
with your conclusions. But I'd like to ask a question: In the first
weight shown, is that after soaking or before?

While I haven't done side-by-side tests I do keep track of the weight
loss. I usually weigh my bowls before soaking, then immediately after
soaking and finally every twenty-four hours. I find the weight increases
significantly after soaking. (I usually soak them for twenty-four
hours.) I would suggest that you do the same if you intend to continue
evaluating this method.

I think I said in an earlier post that I had only lost one bowl since
using this method and I think that bowl was in pretty bad shape even
before soaking.

Harry

"Fred Holder" wrote in message
...
As a result of all of the discussion from my last posting on this subject,
I
took another section of the Walnut Tree Root and cut it in half. I turned
two
bowls out of the two halves. Each had a wall thickness of 1/2" and
diameters of
less than 5". I soaked one in fresh denatured alcohol for two hours and
wrapped
both in brown grocery sack leaving the hollowed part of the bowl open to
the
air. I am very surprised at how similar the weight loss ran. I'm
presenting the
results here for your information:

Date Alcohol Unsoaked
Soaked
5-17 225 grams 215 grams
5-18 200 grams 205 grams
5-19 165 grams 170 grams
5-20 150 grams 154 grams
5-21 125 grams 140 grams
5-22 115 grams 125 grams
5-23 105 grams 115 grams
5-24 100 grams 105 grams
5-25 100 grams 100 grams
5-26 95 grams 95 grams

In nine days the alcohol soaked bowl lost 58 percent of its original
weight and
the unsoaked bowl lost 56 percent of its original weight. The percentage
of
weight loss each day was higher for the alcohol soaked bowl than for the
unsoaked bowl. However, it was not as great as I had expected. Until the
very
end, the alcohol soaked bowl lost weight faster, but as they reached the
end of
the drying cycle it slowed down to almost the same as the unsoaked bowl.
Another
interesting point, the alcohol soaked bowl weighed 10 grams more when the
test
began, but both bowls weighed the same after completely drying. Their
weight has
remained the same from 5-26 to 5-28 indicating that both bowls dry.

The unsoaked bowl warped somewhat more than the alcohol soaked bowl. On
the
alcohol soaked bowl, the finished size at the rim was: slightly over 5" in
the
grain direction and 4-3/4" across the grain. The foot measured 2-1/4" in
the
direction of the grain and slightly over 2" across the grain. On the
unsoaked
bowl, the finished size of the rim was: 4-7/8" in the grain direction and
4-1/2" across the grain. The foot measured 2-3/8" in the direction of the
grain
and slightly over 2" across the grain. Neither of the bowls cracked.

I still believe that alcohol soaking offers some advantages and from
previous
uses it has kept wood from cracking that probably would have cracked.
However,
this is the first side by side test that I've made of Dave Smith's drying
protocol. From this test, it appears that the alcohol soak did not help
very
much.

Now, all of you people who lambasted me on my other post, can say "I told
you
so."



Didn't "lambast" you in the other thread but I can't say I am at all
surprised by your results. I shall continue to merely consume all alcohol
that enters my premises........

--

Regards,
M.J. (Mike) Orr
http://members.shaw.ca/approachingart

In article ,
Fred Holder wrote:

........

I still believe that alcohol soaking offers some advantages and from previous
uses it has kept wood from cracking that probably would have cracked.
However,
this is the first side by side test that I've made of Dave Smith's drying
protocol. From this test, it appears that the alcohol soak did not help very
much.


Fred, even using a split of identical wood, on a small sample size
(2), the math suggests that it's unproven, i.e. it is a statistical
dead-heat.

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

Fred,
Have you sanded and finished them yet? Is there any difference that you
can feel in how the wood sands?
robo hippy

No, I haven't finish turned them. If there is a difference in the turning and
sanding, I'll report that back in a few days.

Fred Holder
http://www.fholder.com

In article .com, robo hippy
says...

Fred,
Have you sanded and finished them yet? Is there any difference that you
can feel in how the wood sands?
robo hippy

I didn't know that you were going to return them. At 1/2 inch thick (or
thin) I would sand them out as is, but then again, I like the warped
shapes.
As far as the weight differences, and drying, I would expect the DNA
bowl to dry faster at first because alcohol evaporates faster than
water. I would also expect the 10 gram difference is also because of
the alcohol.
I am waiting for some fresh Madrone to run some teste of my own.
robo hippy

Fred, the info is relevant and interesting - hardly deserving of lambasting.
If something confirms then hte effort was still worthwhile and your report
appreciated. Like Robo, be interesting to see if there's any difference in
the finishing.

TomNie

Now, all of you people who lambasted me on my other post, can say "I told
you
so."

Fred Holder
http://www.fholder.com

Fred,

Great job. This kind of work is very important. Someone earlier
suggested that unless you were to use a statistically valid sample you
couldn't draw any conclusions. Not true. Statistics is the last, if
even necessssary, step in a scientific proof. Observation, evaluation,
analysis, and preliminary experiments are the first steps.

Regardless of what Dave Smith claims I doubt (though I surely could be
wrong) that even the purest alcohol would reach a saturation
equilibrium in 2 hours. If it didn't that might explain the small
difference. I wish I could think of some way to hold the control
unchanged while soaking the experimental piece for a week. If I can I
think of a reasonable method I will repeat this with something like
apple or lilac that splits like crazy. I will post if I do.

Thanks for your effort.
Larry

I wish I could think of some way to hold the control
unchanged while soaking the experimental piece for a week.

Do what the lumber yards do, keep the log soaking in water.


Dan

Hello Tom,

The alcohol soaked piece seemed to turn and sand better. Perhaps it was because
it was less distorted. Incidentally, when both bowls were turned and finished,
they wound up weighing exactly the same. I violated my test when applying
finish. I used walnut oil on the soaked bowl and Kerf's Wood Creme on the
unsoaked bowl. I liked the looks of the walnut oil finish although it was
darker. The wax finish did not darken the wood.

Fred Holder
http://www.fholder.com

In article , Tom Nie says...

Fred, the info is relevant and interesting - hardly deserving of lambasting.
If something confirms then hte effort was still worthwhile and your report
appreciated. Like Robo, be interesting to see if there's any difference in
the finishing.

TomNie

Now, all of you people who lambasted me on my other post, can say "I told
you
so."

Fred Holder
http://www.fholder.com

Fred Holder wrote:
Now, all of you people who lambasted me on my other post, can say "I told
you
so."

Fred Holder

Screw those guys, Fred. Really. You are making a good effort here,
and taking the time to share your data. You don't have to answer to
anyone.

On a lighter note, the guys over at WoodCentral that SWEAR by the
alcohol soak, all data, inconclusive testing, scientific proof, etc,
all be damned soak their projects about 12 hours. The guys that do
that regularly love their technique and swear by it.

The guys that use and like the method that I have conversed with on the
subject tell me that you have to make some concessions on how well it
works on different woods, which to me would make sense. Most woods
have similar cell structure, but different chemical makeup and cell
shape and arrangment. So with that in mind, it would also make sense
that not all woods would work, or work well. Also, I have always
wondered about how different the outcomes would be on a tree that was
cut at a certain time of year, which would affect the amount of water
in the log.

Keep up the good work. I am looking forward to you future testing.

Robert

"ebd" wrote in message
oups.com...

Fred,

Great job. This kind of work is very important. Someone earlier
suggested that unless you were to use a statistically valid sample you
couldn't draw any conclusions. Not true. Statistics is the last, if
even necessssary, step in a scientific proof. Observation, evaluation,
analysis, and preliminary experiments are the first steps.

First is to research the background material. In this case his desired
outcome would have had to violate known laws of science and good sense
analysis. Since the result of a background search was unacceptable, it,
as with the validation obtained by experiment, has been disregarded. Oh
well, even the half loaf under attempted salvage will disappear with
numbers. Could have drawn some valid conclusions from a sample size of two
if the controls had been of similar grain pattern as suggested.


Regardless of what Dave Smith claims I doubt (though I surely could be
wrong) that even the purest alcohol would reach a saturation
equilibrium in 2 hours. If it didn't that might explain the small
difference.

Saturation? Best you could hope for is a uniform mixture. Unless you're
prepared to withdraw the dilute portion, replace with fresh, and do this a
few times, you'll never do much at enrichment over times measured in days or
weeks. That's the wonderful thing about letting the air do the dilution,
it carries out the trash and replenishes itself.

I wish I could think of some way to hold the control
unchanged while soaking the experimental piece for a week. If I can I
think of a reasonable method I will repeat this with something like
apple or lilac that splits like crazy. I will post if I do.

Thanks for your effort.

Albeit unnecessary. The outcome was in every way predictable and predicted.
Even the denial and attempt to appear the victim. Not to mention posts
like this.

In article .com,
"ebd" wrote:

Fred,

Great job. This kind of work is very important. Someone earlier
suggested that unless you were to use a statistically valid sample you
couldn't draw any conclusions. Not true. Statistics is the last, if
even necessssary, step in a scientific proof. Observation, evaluation,
analysis, and preliminary experiments are the first steps.

Might I suggest you learn something about sample size and variation.
The variation is close enough, given the sample size, that this test
doesn't prove or disprove anything.

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

Might I suggest that you learn something about the scientific method?

At the risk of being thought a pompous ass, I'll suggest that arguments
similar to this have been going on since before Wally and I were born
and no doubt, will continue.

Theory vs observation: empiricism vs rationalism. blah! blah! blah!
Like a basketball game the lead changes and the 'scientific method' now
has the lead. Much of our 'real world' scientific knowledge is in fact
repetition of what we learned from our teachers and what they learned
from theirs. We didn't induce or deduce anything for ourselves, but we
sure hold on to our 'current truths' tightly.

What I am saying badly is that no matter how strong the scientific
evidence that alcohol soaking works or doesn't work, it will remain a
question. No matter how scientific or unscientific our personal position
is about drying wood, as in another emotionally charged situation we may
as well "relax and enjoy it".

I'm way OT to make a point: Newton was scientifically & universally
correct til it turned out that he wasn't. But his laws still work, for
most of us anyway. Everybody knew it was scientifically impossible for
a bacterium to cause a stomach ulcer ...until it did.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Everybody knew it was scientifically impossible for
a bacterium to cause a stomach ulcer ...until it did.

One of the backlashes from advertising hype that talks about 'this laundry soap
is scientifically proven to..." is that people then believe science proves
anything whatsoever. As a physicist once told me, "Science doesn't, can't prove
anything. All it can do is fail to disprove something." Caveat Emptor! Dan

Hi Dan, You had to go & mention soap.
A bar of ivory soap & a cork between the bed sheets calms my restless
legs and quiets my leg cramps. Some things demand proof, some rely on
faith alone, others have only hope. My soap therapy requires all or
none of the above. I know it's true because I read about it in the
paper. Seriously, it works for me (no 'G' this time) and it might or
might not for some of you.

It doesn't much matter to me what Fred proves or fails to. It worked for
him (or it did 'til he took up science). I thank him for sharing
his experiences with enough common sense and enthusiasm that I want to
try to duplicate it. That's sort of like the sainted scientific method,
isn't it?
What does all this have to do with alcohol soaking wet wood? Answer:
Not much.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

I guess that it all comes down to 'all of God's children are different,
and some of us are more different than the others' (unknown). What
works for one, may or may not work for another. I am now in day 3 of an
air/LDD drying comparison of some Madrone bowls. Results in about a
week.
robo hippy
Arch wrote:
Hi Dan, You had to go & mention soap.
A bar of ivory soap & a cork between the bed sheets calms my restless
legs and quiets my leg cramps. Some things demand proof, some rely on
faith alone, others have only hope. My soap therapy requires all or
none of the above. I know it's true because I read about it in the
paper. Seriously, it works for me (no 'G' this time) and it might or
might not for some of you.

It doesn't much matter to me what Fred proves or fails to. It worked for
him (or it did 'til he took up science). I thank him for sharing
his experiences with enough common sense and enthusiasm that I want to
try to duplicate it. That's sort of like the sainted scientific method,
isn't it?
What does all this have to do with alcohol soaking wet wood? Answer:
Not much.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

(Arch) wrote:

Everybody knew it was scientifically impossible for
a bacterium to cause a stomach ulcer ...until it did.



This Just In!! Apparently we may be 95% Bateria! We are, at the least, home
to some 100 Trillion of them - yes, with a 'T'.

I've had my suspicions about the apparent collusion between water and beer,
but this is Just Too Much. Is there any way to raise the rent?

In article .com,
"ebd" wrote:

Might I suggest that you learn something about the scientific method?


Sigh..
1) Learn how to quote you are replying to
2) I think I learned a few things in gaining a BS, part of an MS and
30+ years of work in the "field"
3) I actually do know what I am talking about

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

Ralph E Lindberg wrote:

1) Learn how to quote you are replying to

Not to pick nits, but this isn't even a sentence.

2) I think I learned a few things in gaining a BS, part of an MS and
30+ years of work in the "field"

Sorry, not impressed. After undergrad, I went on for a Masters and 2
Doctoral degrees and just recently retired after working somewhat more
than 40+.

3) I actually do know what I am talking about

Apparently not.

You said:
The variation is close enough, given the sample size, that this test
doesn't prove or disprove anything.

It is unclear to which variation you are referring.

If you are talking about sample consistancy you have it exactly
backwards. Correctly, the sample variation is large enough that given
a small (tiny) sample size you can't draw conclusions. Only if the
variation were non existant, i.e., homogeneous samples, could you begin
to draw conclusions, though still a mistake when using results from
extremely preliminary experiments.

If you are referring to the small differences in the drying rate, the
magnitude of the difference has nothing to do with the ability to draw
conclusions. That rests entirely with sample size, sample selection,
and the statistical test used. Very small variations in results can
be, and often are, significant statistically.

And thus the ****ing contest (that you began) ends - I quit.

"ebd" wrote in message
ups.com...

And thus the ****ing contest (that you began) ends - I quit.


I seem to recall someone suggesting that samples be controlled for
homogeneity by being taken off the same piece successively. Got ragged for
it, too.

That's what you do to control for _known_ factors like distortion being
related to orientation, interval and consistency of annual rings. You're
trying to discover a dependent variable, so you have to carefully control
(or define) the independent ones.

Of course, if you're merely demonstrating known laws of physical chemistry
in your "experiment," as was done by yours doubtful and finally a proponent
of the process, sample population means less. The experiment (Raoult's Law)
has been done billions of times with the same result. It proves those laws
are still operative even when the "experimenter" desires a different
outcome.

For those who are interested, the popularizer of the "drying" process has
set up a little blog, where he documents evaporation - again - as if that
meant anything. http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/t...pl?read=113285

Then there's the one here who wants to see if alcohol-soaking speeds drying
by maintaining one piece in a wet state until he can soak the other to a
fair-thee-well. That's control! Meaningless result, of course.

George,

Actually what's meaningless is the tripe you post. Whoops, I responded
to a troll. Shame on me.

In article .com,
"ebd" wrote:

George,

Actually what's meaningless is the tripe you post. Whoops, I responded
to a troll. Shame on me.


Sigh.... dispite your postureing, and claims, why do I suspect you
haven't a CLUE what you are talking about

Answer, because you don't

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

ebd wrote:
George,

Actually what's meaningless is the tripe you post. Whoops, I responded
to a troll. Shame on me.

Sorry I should have included something that may not be obvious.
Raoult's Law depends on the solute being NON-VOLATILE so either George
doesn't understand the law or he's claiming that ethanol isn't volatile.

I think I understand the misunderstanding about M. Raoult and his law re
tempests
in teapots. The problem here is a failure to realize that Raoult, the
well known French Woodturner, works under Napolonic codes and is guilty
until proven innocent. Many here on rcw post under Anglo law and are
innocent until proven guilty. I reckon either way we are all guilty of
something. You could look it up .....or let it drop.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http//community.webtv.net/almcc/Mac'sMusings

Dropped!