Imagine you've figured it out by now, but there's a difference that is
definitely a difference. What we normally refer to as "stain," is really a
paint lite. It features ground pigment, a vehicle, and maybe a solvent.
Key to understanding is that you have to shake it to disperse the pigment
before use.

Since it's tiny pieces of color, it naturally gets retained best in the end
grain, less in the face, and not at all on the surface of the harder annual
rings. Problem is, it scatters light by virtue of particle size, making
things a bit duller-looking. To my eye, even with the current mod 5
trifocal, this is never really compensated by the finish.

Dye, on the other hand is dissolved, not suspended in a vehicle. We
generally mix the aniline dyes with water or alcohol - polar solvents - to
take advantage of the fact that cellulose likes hydroxyl groups, and wood's
entire macrostructure is designed for the transport of fluid with the
approximate physical characteristics of water. So a dye will penetrate,
rather than coat the wood, and will not fill the pores with pigment and
cured vehicle. Application of a transparent finish will give a film of
consistent refractive index, allowing the shape of the wood grain to bend
the light, not some stain.

Bits of conventional wisdom referred to in this thread include scraping, not
sanding, to leave a more open surface. Scraping doesn't pack the pores with
dust, nor does it heat and harden the surface - burnish - as sanding to a
high number under power can do. This hardened surface, with its contracted
pores and actually reject oil, which relies on secondary channels for
penetration. Not so bad with water or alcohol, because they don't rely on
the same channels. Proof of that is to leave a drop of water on an oiled or
waxed surface.


"JGS" wrote in message
...
Say What? JG

George wrote:


Dye is _not_ stain.