I am putting up a tanalised shed but I want to make the roof a bit
wider and longer, for more of an overhang, and put up a fascia board
to support gutters, and I want to add wider decorative trim on the
corners. I want to use tanalised woof for all these things but the
choice of wood where I live is very limited. So I thought I might get,
say, a 3 inch square length of tanalised and use the table saw to cut
thinner lengths. Or I could plane down a 1" thick board....anyway,
would that work? I don't know if the pressure-treatment goes all
through the wood or if newly cut edges would be as prone to rotting as
ordinary softwood.

The local timber yard sells feather edge boards that would be good (if
cut narrower) to make the decorative trim for the corners of the shed.
With that thinner wood (max about 1/2 inch) be pretty much sure to be
treated all the way through?

blod wrote:
I am putting up a tanalised shed but I want to make the roof a bit
wider and longer, for more of an overhang, and put up a fascia board
to support gutters, and I want to add wider decorative trim on the
corners. I want to use tanalised woof for all these things but the
choice of wood where I live is very limited. So I thought I might get,
say, a 3 inch square length of tanalised and use the table saw to cut
thinner lengths. Or I could plane down a 1" thick board....anyway,
would that work? I don't know if the pressure-treatment goes all
through the wood or if newly cut edges would be as prone to rotting as
ordinary softwood.

The local timber yard sells feather edge boards that would be good (if
cut narrower) to make the decorative trim for the corners of the shed.
With that thinner wood (max about 1/2 inch) be pretty much sure to be
treated all the way through?


Nope. I've sawn tanalised timber, and the color is at best a mm or so deep.

blod wrote:
I am putting up a tanalised shed but I want to make the roof a bit
wider and longer, for more of an overhang, and put up a fascia board
to support gutters, and I want to add wider decorative trim on the
corners. I want to use tanalised woof for all these things but the
choice of wood where I live is very limited. So I thought I might get,
say, a 3 inch square length of tanalised and use the table saw to cut
thinner lengths. Or I could plane down a 1" thick board....anyway,
would that work? I don't know if the pressure-treatment goes all
through the wood or if newly cut edges would be as prone to rotting as
ordinary softwood.

The local timber yard sells feather edge boards that would be good (if
cut narrower) to make the decorative trim for the corners of the shed.
With that thinner wood (max about 1/2 inch) be pretty much sure to be
treated all the way through?

blod,

It would depend on how the timber was tanalised. If it was merely dipped or
soaked, then it would fairly superficial - if it was pressure/vacuum
treated, then it should 'right through'.

As a matter of interest, I have a fence made of tanalised timber that was
erected some 10 years ago (all pressure treated) which is as good now as
when it was done - and the 100mm square posts showed tanalising right to the
core (as specified by me).

Cash

On 29 July, 15:17, "Cash"
wrote:
blod wrote:
I am putting up a tanalised shed but I want to make the roof a bit
wider and longer, for more of an overhang, and put up a fascia board
to support gutters, and I want to add wider decorative trim on the
corners. I want to use tanalised woof for all these things but the
choice of wood where I live is very limited. So I thought I might get,
say, a 3 inch square length of tanalised and use the table saw to cut
thinner lengths. *Or I could plane down a 1" thick board....anyway,
would that work? I don't know if the pressure-treatment goes all
through the wood or if newly cut edges would be as prone to rotting as
ordinary softwood.

The local timber yard sells feather edge boards that would be good (if
cut narrower) to make the decorative trim for the corners of the shed.
With that thinner wood (max about 1/2 inch) be pretty much sure to be
treated all the way through?

blod,

It would depend on how the timber was tanalised. *If it was merely dipped or
soaked, then it would fairly superficial - if it was pressure/vacuum
treated, then it should 'right through'.

As a matter of interest, I have a fence made of tanalised timber that was
erected some 10 years ago (all pressure treated) which is as good now as
when it was done - and the 100mm square posts showed tanalising right to the
core (as specified by me).

Cash

Tanalith process is defined as a pressure impregnation
anything else is immersion

Old CCA was good but the Eurocrappers have f****d up the process by
taking out the A and as a result is it not so effective
Chris

Chris George wrote:
On 29 July, 15:17, "Cash"
wrote:
blod wrote:
I am putting up a tanalised shed but I want to make the roof a bit
wider and longer, for more of an overhang, and put up a fascia board
to support gutters, and I want to add wider decorative trim on the
corners. I want to use tanalised woof for all these things but the
choice of wood where I live is very limited. So I thought I might get,
say, a 3 inch square length of tanalised and use the table saw to cut
thinner lengths. Or I could plane down a 1" thick board....anyway,
would that work? I don't know if the pressure-treatment goes all
through the wood or if newly cut edges would be as prone to rotting as
ordinary softwood.
The local timber yard sells feather edge boards that would be good (if
cut narrower) to make the decorative trim for the corners of the shed.
With that thinner wood (max about 1/2 inch) be pretty much sure to be
treated all the way through?
blod,

It would depend on how the timber was tanalised. If it was merely dipped or
soaked, then it would fairly superficial - if it was pressure/vacuum
treated, then it should 'right through'.

As a matter of interest, I have a fence made of tanalised timber that was
erected some 10 years ago (all pressure treated) which is as good now as
when it was done - and the 100mm square posts showed tanalising right to the
core (as specified by me).

Cash

Tanalith process is defined as a pressure impregnation
anything else is immersion

Old CCA was good but the Eurocrappers have f****d up the process by
taking out the A and as a result is it not so effective
Chris

Well I dunno about all that. I bought a LOT of 'pressure treated' wood
and no WAY did the greenish cast go more than 1mm into it.

Maybe a bit more at the corners. Oh it penetrates all right..its not
just a surface treatment, but the price of it alone suggests that its
not fully impregnated with copper salts. No way! It would be hugely
expensive.

Its just a way of getting treatment beyond the immediate surface, it
doesn't fully penetrate the wood by any means.

On 29 July, 14:17, blod wrote:

I don't know if the pressure-treatment goes all
through the wood or if newly cut edges would be as prone to rotting as
ordinary softwood.

Just one of tanalised timber's several failings is that if you saw or
drill into it, then you might as well not have bothered. It's a
surface treatment and it's of limited depth. IMHO, you're better with
_untreated_ timber, of a species that is inherently more rot-
resistant. This needn't be expensive, decent larch isn't.

For more detail, try and find excerpts from BS 8417 (2003) (town
library might help, as it's £100 ish from HMSO). In particular, look
at the differences between "class 3" (what you can usually get) and
"class 4" (what you need to use for contact with the ground)
treatments.

Timber's expensive and variable in quality, it's worth hunting to find
the best sources.

On 29 July, 15:30, Chris George wrote:

Tanalith process is defined as a pressure impregnation

Tanalith is not pressure impregnation (which barely works) it's a
vacuum process. Although it's also followed by an overpressure, it's
the vacuum that makes the difference in penetration depth. Things that
merely claim to be "pressure treated" are usually just that alone, and
they're nowhere near as deeply penetrated.

Tanalith is a trademark, and protected. "Tanalised" is a derivation of
this and less easy to protect. If I wanted to be sure that it really
was what I thought, then I'd have more confidence if I saw the word
Tanalith than just seeing "tanalised"

Old CCA was good but the Eurocrappers have f****d up the process by
taking out the A and as a result is it not so effective

Tanalith C was the CCA-based process and Tanalith E is the new one
(since 2002), without the chrome or the arsenic. Tanalith C is still
(AFAIK) in production for export, and it's popular in Africa. Tanalith
E is also showing good results at resisting rot in the UK climate,
compared to Tanalith C and there's no reason at all to consider it as
"ineffective". Can't say how it stands up against termites though,
which is AFAIK why Africa still likes CCA.

On 29 July, 17:15, Andy Dingley wrote:
On 29 July, 15:30, Chris George wrote:

Tanalith process is defined as a pressure impregnation

Tanalith is not pressure impregnation (which barely works) it's a
vacuum process. Although it's also followed by an overpressure, it's
the vacuum that makes the difference in penetration depth. Things that
merely claim to be "pressure treated" are usually just that alone, and
they're nowhere near as deeply penetrated.

Tanalith is a trademark, and protected. "Tanalised" is a derivation of
this and less easy to protect. If I wanted to be sure that it really
was what I thought, then I'd have more confidence if I saw the word
Tanalith than just seeing "tanalised"

Old CCA was good but the Eurocrappers have f****d up the process by
taking out the A and as a result is it not so effective

Tanalith C was the CCA-based process and Tanalith E is the new one
(since 2002), without the chrome or the arsenic. Tanalith C is still
(AFAIK) in production for export, and it's popular in Africa. Tanalith
E is also showing good results at resisting rot in the UK climate,
compared to Tanalith C and there's no reason at all to consider it as
"ineffective". Can't say how it stands up against termites though,
which is AFAIK why Africa still likes CCA.

Fair comment Andy, but by pressure I really meant that it was an
industrial process which involved both high and low pressures in a
cycle and of course you are right that in order to get the pressure to
work it involves a reduction of pressure first as with the VAC VAC but
on the issue of the merits of CCA verus the stuff produced now, I can
tell you from first hand experience that in 35 years of surveying I
never found CCA affected by dry rot (unless the end had been cut) and
just last week I came across timbers that were completely attacked in
treated side grain by a normal attack of dry rot - unless I had seen
it myself I would not have believed it so sadly we can no longer rely
on Tanalised timber to be rot proof
I am going to take samples and send them off for analysis probably by
Hicksons or the like just to check it really was subjected to the
proper process
Chris

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 29 July, 14:17, blod wrote:

I don't know if the pressure-treatment goes all
through the wood or if newly cut edges would be as prone to rotting as
ordinary softwood.

Just one of tanalised timber's several failings is that if you saw or
drill into it, then you might as well not have bothered. It's a
surface treatment and it's of limited depth. IMHO, you're better with
_untreated_ timber, of a species that is inherently more rot-
resistant. This needn't be expensive, decent larch isn't.

I think that's a BIT harsh. Sawing the ends of and plastering them with
something is not too bad.

For more detail, try and find excerpts from BS 8417 (2003) (town
library might help, as it's £100 ish from HMSO). In particular, look
at the differences between "class 3" (what you can usually get) and
"class 4" (what you need to use for contact with the ground)
treatments.

Timber's expensive and variable in quality, it's worth hunting to find
the best sources.

Also remember that fascias et al are not generally subject to prolonged
damp: they tend to dry out periodically and that kills rot.

What kills wood in under a year if not treated is being pushed into the
ground. Perfect breeding ground for fungi.

The other big rotter is the flat topped post where rainwater soaks into
the end and most and algae accumulates.

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 29 July, 15:30, Chris George wrote:

Tanalith process is defined as a pressure impregnation

Tanalith is not pressure impregnation (which barely works) it's a
vacuum process. Although it's also followed by an overpressure, it's
the vacuum that makes the difference in penetration depth.

OMG I hope Dennis doesn't read that. He'll be down the timber yard with his
fairly old plunger...


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

blod wrote:
I am putting up a tanalised shed but I want to make the roof a bit
wider and longer, for more of an overhang, and put up a fascia board
to support gutters, and I want to add wider decorative trim on the
corners. I want to use tanalised woof for all these things but the
choice of wood where I live is very limited. So I thought I might get,
say, a 3 inch square length of tanalised and use the table saw to cut
thinner lengths. Or I could plane down a 1" thick board....anyway,
would that work? I don't know if the pressure-treatment goes all
through the wood or if newly cut edges would be as prone to rotting as
ordinary softwood.

Treat it with a decent wood treatment, should be fine.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Jul 29, 2:25*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
blod wrote:
I am putting up a tanalised shed but I want to make the roof a bit
wider and longer, for more of an overhang, and put up a fascia board
to support gutters, and I want to add wider decorative trim on the
corners. I want to use tanalised woof for all these things but the
choice of wood where I live is very limited. So I thought I might get,
say, a 3 inch square length of tanalised and use the table saw to cut
thinner lengths. *Or I could plane down a 1" thick board....anyway,
would that work? I don't know if the pressure-treatment goes all
through the wood or if newly cut edges would be as prone to rotting as
ordinary softwood.

The local timber yard sells feather edge boards that would be good (if
cut narrower) to make the decorative trim for the corners of the shed.
With that thinner wood (max about 1/2 inch) be pretty much sure to be
treated all the way through?

Nope. I've sawn tanalised timber, and the color is at best a mm or so deep.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your right, its only skin deep. GPO as it was called now Telecom,
tried it as against creosote for their telegraph poles but soon went
back to creosote

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well I dunno about all that. I bought a LOT of 'pressure treated' wood
and no WAY did the greenish cast go more than 1mm into it.

Maybe a bit more at the corners. Oh it penetrates all right..its not
just a surface treatment, but the price of it alone suggests that its
not fully impregnated with copper salts. No way! It would be hugely
expensive.

Its just a way of getting treatment beyond the immediate surface, it
doesn't fully penetrate the wood by any means.



Jacksons (local to me) claim their pressure treatment is better than most.

Their website boasts about it - and clearly shows it not being through the
entire thickness (not even close).

Given they claim to be better than most I suspect most stuff is very limited
penetration.

http://www.jacksons-fencing.co.uk/pa...ons.aspx?pg=33

has a few images. No idea what particular cocktail of nasty chemicals
they use mind.

Darren

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:32:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What kills wood in under a year if not treated is being pushed into the
ground. Perfect breeding ground for fungi.

But the bit in the ground will be OK and the bit 6" or so above
ground level. It's the bit in air just above ground level that rots,
plenty of oxygen and just the right amount of damp by capillary
action up the timber.

The other big rotter is the flat topped post where rainwater soaks into
the end and most and algae accumulates.

Yeah, tends to rot the core out.

--
Cheers
Dave.

blod wrote:
I am putting up a tanalised shed but I want to make the roof a bit
wider and longer, for more of an overhang, and put up a fascia board
to support gutters, and I want to add wider decorative trim on the
corners. I want to use tanalised woof for all these things but the
choice of wood where I live is very limited. So I thought I might get,
say, a 3 inch square length of tanalised and use the table saw to cut
thinner lengths. Or I could plane down a 1" thick board....anyway,
would that work? I don't know if the pressure-treatment goes all
through the wood or if newly cut edges would be as prone to rotting as
ordinary softwood.

Good question. I've e mail the Tanalised people
http://www.archchemicals.com/Fed/WOO.../tanalised.htm
and asked them. I'll post back when they reply.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
blod wrote:
I am putting up a tanalised shed but I want to make the roof a bit
wider and longer, for more of an overhang, and put up a fascia board
to support gutters, and I want to add wider decorative trim on the
corners. I want to use tanalised woof for all these things but the
choice of wood where I live is very limited. So I thought I might get,
say, a 3 inch square length of tanalised and use the table saw to cut
thinner lengths. Or I could plane down a 1" thick board....anyway,
would that work? I don't know if the pressure-treatment goes all
through the wood or if newly cut edges would be as prone to rotting as
ordinary softwood.

Good question. I've e mail the Tanalised people
http://www.archchemicals.com/Fed/WOO...eProtection/ta
nalised.htm and asked them. I'll post back when they reply.

I asked here a bit back, but everyone was asleep, so.....

When adding some fascia boards to my shed, I treated them with the clear
version of Barrettine Wood Preserver. It seemed powerful, and killed the
grass where I spilt some, so looked good.

Her indoors now wants me to coat our tanalised front fence with
something like
http://www.barrettine.co.uk/products/woodcare/1495
which is advertised on the other tin, but seems not to be stocked
anywhere locally. She wants the fence to end up a very light brown
colour, and none of the creosotey things seem light enough. This stuff
is in a sort of paraffiny type solvent.

What does anyone think of brushing quantities of this onto the fence?
The front looks of the property depend a lot on my not making a complete
mess of it. Would it be mad and hazardous to try to spray it? Would it
be sensible to try to mix some dye into the clear and hope the colour is
slightly consistent? I can buy the clear locally.
--
Bill

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 29 July, 15:30, Chris George wrote:

Tanalith process is defined as a pressure impregnation
Tanalith is not pressure impregnation (which barely works) it's a
vacuum process. Although it's also followed by an overpressure, it's
the vacuum that makes the difference in penetration depth.

OMG I hope Dennis doesn't read that. He'll be down the timber yard with his
fairly old plunger...


Shades of Eskimo Nell again.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:32:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What kills wood in under a year if not treated is being pushed into the
ground. Perfect breeding ground for fungi.

But the bit in the ground will be OK and the bit 6" or so above
ground level. It's the bit in air just above ground level that rots,
plenty of oxygen and just the right amount of damp by capillary
action up the timber.


I think not., if the mushrooms that spring up from bits of buried timber
in the garden are anything to go by..sure, the spores strike above
ground, but they rapidly expand below as mycelia. Fungi dont need light,
or air..


The other big rotter is the flat topped post where rainwater soaks into
the end and most and algae accumulates.

Yeah, tends to rot the core out.

Yup.

In article
,
Andy Dingley wrote:
Just one of tanalised timber's several failings is that if you saw or
drill into it, then you might as well not have bothered. It's a
surface treatment and it's of limited depth. IMHO, you're better with
_untreated_ timber, of a species that is inherently more rot-
resistant. This needn't be expensive, decent larch isn't.

Just what use could wood be put to without it being cut or penetrated in
some way?

--
*What hair colour do they put on the driver's license of a bald man? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 30 July, 02:42, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:32:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What kills wood in under a year if not treated is being pushed into the
ground. Perfect breeding ground for fungi.

But the bit in the ground will be OK and the bit 6" or so above
ground level. It's the bit in air just above ground level that rots,
plenty of oxygen and just the right amount of damp by capillary
action up the timber.

I think not., if the mushrooms that spring up from bits of buried timber
in the garden are anything to go by..sure, the spores strike above
ground, but they rapidly expand below as mycelia. Fungi dont need light,
or air..

The other big rotter is the flat topped post where rainwater soaks into
the end and most and algae accumulates.

Yeah, tends to rot the core out.

Yup.

The Natural Philosopher is right

Dr Ed Bains did the original work on this in the ICST lab back in the
early seventies when we were both students together doing our theses
It transpires (pun intended) that what happens when a stake is put in
the ground that there is some wicking of the salts in the ground
up the timber to the point at ground level where they can evaporate.
These salts bring nitrogen to the substrate (wood) and make it really
rather
tasty for the precursor (generally stainers) fungi only to be followed
by the rotting fungi
The wood immediately adjacent to the ground rots preferentially. The
wood above ground and the wood below ground at the point where it is
anaerobic
does not rot.
Most of us who have replaced old fence posts will confirm this on
looking at the posts on removal.
Generally at the top there is much less decay (albeit some) as it gets
to dry out and gets too hot in the sun

Chris

"Chris George" wrote in message
...
On 30 July, 02:42, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:32:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What kills wood in under a year if not treated is being pushed into
the
ground. Perfect breeding ground for fungi.

But the bit in the ground will be OK and the bit 6" or so above
ground level. It's the bit in air just above ground level that rots,
plenty of oxygen and just the right amount of damp by capillary
action up the timber.

I think not., if the mushrooms that spring up from bits of buried timber
in the garden are anything to go by..sure, the spores strike above
ground, but they rapidly expand below as mycelia. Fungi dont need light,
or air..

The other big rotter is the flat topped post where rainwater soaks
into
the end and most and algae accumulates.

Yeah, tends to rot the core out.

Yup.

The Natural Philosopher is right

Dr Ed Bains did the original work on this in the ICST lab back in the
early seventies when we were both students together doing our theses
It transpires (pun intended) that what happens when a stake is put in
the ground that there is some wicking of the salts in the ground
up the timber to the point at ground level where they can evaporate.
These salts bring nitrogen to the substrate (wood) and make it really
rather
tasty for the precursor (generally stainers) fungi only to be followed
by the rotting fungi
The wood immediately adjacent to the ground rots preferentially. The
wood above ground and the wood below ground at the point where it is
anaerobic
does not rot.
Most of us who have replaced old fence posts will confirm this on
looking at the posts on removal.
Generally at the top there is much less decay (albeit some) as it gets
to dry out and gets too hot in the sun

The tops are usually OK because you either fit post caps or saw them at an
angle to allow runoff.
That's why you use triangular rails on fencing too.

The worst thing you can do (as far as rot is concerned) is have flat
horizontal areas of timber to collect water like many decks are.

If you want rot free posts use concrete (even concrete rots, but not usually
in a lifetime).


Chris

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Chris George wrote:

But the bit in the ground will be OK and the bit 6" or so above
ground level. It's the bit in air just above ground level that
rots,
plenty of oxygen and just the right amount of damp by capillary
action up the timber.

I think not., if the mushrooms that spring up from bits of buried
timber in the garden are anything to go by..sure, the spores
strike
above ground, but they rapidly expand below as mycelia. Fungi dont
need
light or air..

The Natural Philosopher is right

It transpires (pun intended) that what happens when a stake is put in
the ground that there is some wicking of the salts in the ground
up the timber to the point at ground level where they can evaporate.
These salts bring nitrogen to the substrate (wood) and make it really
rather tasty for the precursor (generally stainers) fungi only to be
followed by the rotting fungi The wood immediately adjacent to the
ground rots preferentially. The wood above ground and the wood below
ground at the point where it is anaerobic does not rot.

Which isn't what TNP said but is what I said. Though perhaps not
being clear enough about the anerobic nature of the below ground
timber. Things do not rot in anerobic conditions, think the Bog
People...

There is a "comfort zone" for the fungi/bacteria that rot the timeber
that is above ground level and doesn't extend that far below it. A
lot does depend on ground conditions but for yer average bit of
garden soil the bit of a stake/pole more than a couple of inches
below ground will take a lot longer to rot than the section at/just
above ground level.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Andy Dingley wrote:
Just one of tanalised timber's several failings is that if you saw or
drill into it, then you might as well not have bothered. It's a
surface treatment and it's of limited depth. IMHO, you're better with
_untreated_ timber, of a species that is inherently more rot-
resistant. This needn't be expensive, decent larch isn't.

Just what use could wood be put to without it being cut or penetrated in
some way?

Well tanalising only retards, it doesn't stop, rot.


There arent that many 400+ year old timber franme houses..not softwood,
anyway ;-)

If you want longevity, use oak, or stone, or something else.

dennis@home wrote:


"Chris George" wrote in message
...
On 30 July, 02:42, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:32:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What kills wood in under a year if not treated is being pushed into
the
ground. Perfect breeding ground for fungi.

But the bit in the ground will be OK and the bit 6" or so above
ground level. It's the bit in air just above ground level that rots,
plenty of oxygen and just the right amount of damp by capillary
action up the timber.

I think not., if the mushrooms that spring up from bits of buried timber
in the garden are anything to go by..sure, the spores strike above
ground, but they rapidly expand below as mycelia. Fungi dont need light,
or air..

The other big rotter is the flat topped post where rainwater soaks
into
the end and most and algae accumulates.

Yeah, tends to rot the core out.

Yup.

The Natural Philosopher is right

Dr Ed Bains did the original work on this in the ICST lab back in the
early seventies when we were both students together doing our theses
It transpires (pun intended) that what happens when a stake is put in
the ground that there is some wicking of the salts in the ground
up the timber to the point at ground level where they can evaporate.
These salts bring nitrogen to the substrate (wood) and make it really
rather
tasty for the precursor (generally stainers) fungi only to be followed
by the rotting fungi
The wood immediately adjacent to the ground rots preferentially. The
wood above ground and the wood below ground at the point where it is
anaerobic
does not rot.
Most of us who have replaced old fence posts will confirm this on
looking at the posts on removal.
Generally at the top there is much less decay (albeit some) as it gets
to dry out and gets too hot in the sun

The tops are usually OK because you either fit post caps or saw them at an
angle to allow runoff.
That's why you use triangular rails on fencing too.

The worst thing you can do (as far as rot is concerned) is have flat
horizontal areas of timber to collect water like many decks are.

If you want rot free posts use concrete (even concrete rots, but not usually
in a lifetime).

Our 9 acres are fenced with flat topped posts in the main. They don't
generally fail anywhere above ground, as describe further up this
thread they rot just below the surface (of the ground).

--
Chris Green

dennis@home wrote:


The worst thing you can do (as far as rot is concerned) is have flat
horizontal areas of timber to collect water like many decks are.

Sigh I don't want to drive you into another coniption fit Dennipoo's,
but;

Decks don't collect water. First of all, they have gaps between the boards,
secondly they are built with a fall and thirdly assuming they did collect
water it would be in contact with the flat edge of the board - which doesn't
absorb water like end grain. And forthly if its treated with decking oil
its pretty much waterproof anyway.

Awaits rabid abuse, teflon like denial, angry schoolboy rants etc...



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

The worst thing you can do (as far as rot is concerned) is have flat
horizontal areas of timber to collect water like many decks are.

Sigh I don't want to drive you into another coniption fit Dennipoo's,
but;

Decks don't collect water. First of all, they have gaps between the boards,
secondly they are built with a fall and thirdly assuming they did collect
water it would be in contact with the flat edge of the board - which doesn't
absorb water like end grain. And forthly if its treated with decking oil
its pretty much waterproof anyway.

Awaits rabid abuse, teflon like denial, angry schoolboy rants etc...



The point is decks wont rot until they have been torn up and burnt for
fuel, along with hardboard covered victorian panel doors.

The are after all, only what a tower block denizen builds when he
finally makes it to suburbia. You can take the chav out of the tower
block...

The worst thing you can do (as far as rot is concerned) is have flat
horizontal areas of timber to collect water like many decks are.

Some pillock will be along in a mo as he will fail to understand the above
as usual.

Note the bit where it says many decks have /horizontal/ areas which he will
say they don't.
Which is plainly wrong as he usually is, many decks do have horizontal areas
either by design or by error.
Then he will deny that he can't read and start chucking abuse about as
usual.
I just wish he would killfile me and stop posting his cr@p.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:53:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
had this to say:

The point is decks wont rot until they have been torn up and burnt for
fuel, along with hardboard covered victorian panel doors.

The are after all, only what a tower block denizen builds when he
finally makes it to suburbia. You can take the chav out of the tower
block...

How true.

They're only there to try to avoid gardening. A sort of organic
(fsvo) equivalent of crazy paving, upon which to set up a
carbon-belching 'patio heater', and a loud 'steeerio' to annoy the
neighbours whilst messing about with the disposable 'barby'.
And of course to set off fireworks at all unreasonable hours.

--
Frank Erskine

In message , "dennis@home"
writes

The worst thing you can do (as far as rot is concerned) is have flat
horizontal areas of timber to collect water like many decks are.

Some pillock will be along in a mo as he will fail to understand the
above as usual.

Note the bit where it says many decks have /horizontal/ areas which he
will say they don't.
Which is plainly wrong as he usually is, many decks do have horizontal
areas either by design or by error.
Then he will deny that he can't read and start chucking abuse about as
usual.
I just wish he would killfile me and stop posting his cr@p.


Dennis, dennis, dennis - what are you babbling on about ?

If you feel so paranoid, maybe you should look elsewhere other than
uk.d-i-y for your psychiatric support


--
geoff

dennis@home wrote:
The worst thing you can do (as far as rot is concerned) is have flat
horizontal areas of timber to collect water like many decks are.

Some pillock will be along in a mo as he will fail to understand the
above as usual.

Are you trying for ****wit of the year Dennipoo's?

Note the bit where it says many decks have /horizontal/ areas which
he will say they don't.

Evidence? Show me photos to prove your point. I've never seen or built a
deck without a fall. How many have you seen?

Which is plainly wrong as he usually is, many decks do have
horizontal areas either by design or by error.

WTF would you know about decks anyway? How many have you built? How many
decks are horizontal? Where are they?

Note the point Dennipoo's before you switch to teflon mode. You made the
claim that 'many decks have flat horizontal areas that collect water'. Nowe
you need to prove that point.

Then he will deny that he can't read and start chucking abuse about as
usual.

'deny that he can't read'? Isn't that a double negative? I don't
understand it anyway.

I just wish he would killfile me and stop posting his cr@p.

Wouldn't be as much fun Dennipoo's. I enjoy winding you up & making you
look like the **** you are.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nope. I've sawn tanalised timber, and the color is at best a mm or so
deep.

I recently bought a tanalised (well it was green anyway) newel post from
Wicks - presumably made for decking. I only wanted a small part of it -
but was the cheapest way of getting wood that size. And on cutting it was
surprised just how far in the green went. It was closer to an inch than
mm. Of course the colour got lighter towards the middle.

--
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

'deny that he can't read'? Isn't that a double negative? I don't
understand it anyway.

Oh look the pillock actually posts replies that prove the point.

--
The newsgroup idiot aka TMH will be posting shortly to say whatever I post
is wrong.
He is *always* wrong.
Its due to his mental problems and I have stopped reading his posts so if
you really want to know why he is wrong you will have to quote him,
personally I would just killfile him and forget about him.