"robo hippy" wrote in message
oups.com...
With all of the George bashing that has been going on, did anyone
notice that in my post, that with all of the experimenting that I have
done, that I haven't noticed any real difference in the drying methods?
I am not saying that it, or any of the other methods don't word, I am
saying that I can't tell any real difference. Some day I will have to
do a more scientific testing.

Yes indeed. As you might have noticed elsewhere, people who are not
intimidated by the alcohol "tailors" into holding their tongue in the
presence of the emperor are having similar problems. You must use good
procedure for good results, none of which has anything to do with ethanol.

My spouse, bless her soul, is fond of answering the question of "how's
George?" with another question.

"Compared to what?"

So, here's a comparison to help answer the question as to whether there's
anything remarkable in the decidedly skimpy "data" provided as conclusive
evidence at the beginning of this thread.

My neighbor felled a cherry tree on the weekend of the eighth of April of
this year. It had not yet come into bud, so it was certainly low in unbound
moisture. We hauled it to my place the following Thursday, April 13, and I
began turning from it that weekend. Yesterday, after posting my
confirmation of evaporation data, and before the 911 difficulties began an
afternoon and evening of festivities, I went over to the shelf where a
half-dozen early pieces made of that wood were stored.

Pieces were roughed between 1"and 1 1/8" thick to allow for a bit of design
change later as desired, placed on the table in a shop with 65% day, much
lower during the heated night relative humidity until no dark spots from
centrifugally expressed moisture were visible, then stored under the drill
press near the floor. Locating closer to the floor gives an additional 10%
RH, on average, bit more when heated air is dumped from above. I'm in no
rush to dry them.

They were moved to their present location 3 feet off the floor and out of
the shop so the Son-in-Law and I could make all the %$#@&!! mortises for
slats in the king-size mission bed my daughter wants on the 5th of May,
where relative humidities are in the high 60s or even higher still (75-80)
the last ten rainy days.

How have they fared? Average of 16% at the moment, measured at the worst
place, the bottoms they're resting on. This compared to the best case EMC
of 14.3 for 75% and 65 degrees - the current averages. Had they been
thinner, of course, they'd be as dry as they can get in this humidity, since
doubling the thickness triples the dry time. They'll be final turned at
9-10%, for 50% RH/70 degrees when the dehumidifier comes on line if I need
their variety and size for late summer shows, or in the fall.

As to distortion, it's safe to say that this is as poorly understood as
chemistry among some. Anyone who studies wood knows that distortion is
related to the interval, orientation and curvature of the annual rings, and
the relative density of the early and late wood. This tree grew pretty
evenly, with an average of more than an eighth of an inch between rings, and
the pieces were cut on average an inch from the center, making the shortest
radius ring about 3/4 to 1". Anticipated diameter loss in a cherry bowl
at 10% EMC , 12-15" in diameter and this ring interval/orientation seems to
range from 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch exclusive of rim drop. These fit in
nicely, with the worst and largest at nearly 3/8.

Liquid solvent dehydration processes, as I have referenced, are performed by
dilution, the same way at least Arch can remember dehydrating samples in
Histology lab. The dilute solution is removed and freshened after each soak
in successive operations until the desired concentration is obtained. The
dehydrated material must then be dried, of course! The magic of alcohol
seems to be that it, as the bush on Sinai, burns yet is not consumed.
Chemical reactions deplete the reagent(s), replacement dilutes the solvent,
which is why it is removed and replaced with fresh to get to the desired
concentration. See any of that in the alcohol process? Must be obeying
some law other than the known laws of chemistry to work.

"But - but - but, doesn't the alcohol, with its higher vapor pressure (lower
boiling point) evaporate faster than water?" Sure, but it doesn't dry the
piece any faster unless you've done the dilutions. You can't have it both
ways and say that the alcohol speeds the evaporation of water in a
short-soak piece. If you distill alcohol from aqueous solution to get to
your 95% azeotrope by using Raoult's law, you can't simply repeal it for the
evaporation stage to make your theory work.

Which it doesn't. Keep an eye on the relative humidity. You can do as I
and leave it open for the air to dilute the water, or protect the wood from
too great a surface/interior gradient by bagging, wrapping, coating, or
containing. They're all doing the same thing. Which is why they all work,
and have since records have been kept and before. It's also why the
alcohol "works" - because the water molecules are continually washed away by
the surrounding air. It's the dilution you didn't do.

On the subject of weight. Was roughing a piece from near the end of a
year-old maple log and noticed how light it felt compared to one I had
roughed 40 inches into the same log two days prior, of similar thickness and
shape. Piece from just inside the end checks weighed 2155 grams, while the
other, which was just barely losing the shadow of unbound surface moisture
tilted the scale by weighing more than 3 kilos. The real fun was in the
difference between the wet and dry ends of the piece I turned. If I had
whipped the speed up on the lathe, that sucker would have wobbled and flown.
More than one way to get a piece out of balance.