"Dan Bollinger" wrote in message
news:4JNke.6037$Is4.1742@attbi_s21...
====One has! I am sorry, but I forget his name and am not sure if he
still
plays in our sandbox. I seem to have lost our correspondence on this,
although part of it may be in the in the Sacred Archives. This
individual,
if I recall correctly, had a Master's Degree in Biology and a PhD in
Biochemistry. He pursued it as far as he could, but to go further would
have involved using testing equipment at his workplace that he could not
justify for an off-the-books personal project, citing that it would be
very
expensive to pay for the use of the machinery.

So, it might not be as simple as you imply.

Perhaps not, but I suppose it depends on what he was wanting to measure.
It
seems simple enough to try different chemicals, turn a bowl, and see if it
cracks. Dan


Well, that's enough for some, but hardly scientific. We have those folks
who say soaking in detergent keeps a bowl from cracking while neglected for
a day. Or, if you turn thin and soak, it won't crack. It makes it easier to
sand and keeps the dust down....

Of course soaking in anything miscible with water will keep the piece from
losing moisture, almost any piece turned to less than 1/2" has to be abused
to crack while drying, and any sanding lube (I can say that now that Andy's
gone, can't I?) will make sweeping compound rather than clouds of dust when
sanding.

It's not whether you succeed with a bowl, but whether that success was due
to the chemistry or in the natural scheme of things. In experiments, it's
called a control.

Thus the constant reminders to study how wood dries before you assume, then
cap your assumptions with halos.