"Arch" wrote in message
...
Science is great, but not holy.

It _is_ however, repeatable, by definition. Problem arises, as you have
seen on WC, when folks with normal-size ears figure an endorsement by some
"name" turner means there's a magic feather that will allow them to fly.

It is a great disservice to imply the irreproducible....

"Dan Bollinger" wrote in message
news:mxZke.4010$IC6.1750@attbi_s72...
I decided to try out the LDD method, and while the jury's still out on
the final result, I did a little research to try and figure out just
how and why it might work.

Prometheus, Great thread you started! I contacted the Forest Product
Labs
and asked them about LDD and gave them all the technical information you
and
everyone else has provided with the hopes that someone there, or in some
university somewhere, this had been investigated. Here is there reply:

"Dear Mr. Bollinger,
Thank you for your email inquiry! We do not have any information on this
method of stabilizing wood. We do have a packet of information that uses
PEG (polyethylene glycol) ---this method can be found in our Wood
Handbook,
Wood as an Engineering Material
(http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fp.../fplgtr113.htm) "

Not what I hoped for. Dan



I just don't understand your problem Dan. Leif has said at least a million
times the "process" works. How much more proof could you possibly require?
....chuckle

--

Regards,
M.J. (Mike) Orr
www.island.net/~morr

Darned if I can remember what Brit said it a long while back but it was
something to the effect that "there is science and their is faith and
between the two I can grasp the universe" There are some things men are not
meant to understand and perhaps LDD is one of them.

As to the 'science' of medicine, I have heard it referred to as the Medical
Arts. Different people react differently to medical procedures and the
physicians operate, perhaps, on averages, on how previous patients have
responded. Wife just underwent major surgery and the doc was right on with
all of his predictions save a minor one. One can make a good argument for
seeing medicine as a science but there are still very large and unknown
aspects and for these understanding is more of an art then an established
dogma.

Some may claim that using averages is in some way scientific as it deals
with statistics. Perhaps. Although as I learned in a time series class from
the rather accomplished prof who taught it, it is sometimes a matter of
opinion as to whether an observed series is a moving average or an
autoregressive function. It's all a matter of how you see the series.
Another prof teaching another stats class (Lordy I took 5 of them) advocated
the use of the bi-occular imact assessment. And as we students dutifully
scribbled his words as holy writ, he smiled. "How is it done?" we asked.
Again he smiled and said, "Hold the two graphs up side by side. Close one
eye and squint with the other. Than reverse procedure. As long as you can
justify one outcome over the other you are covered."

As for Kuhn and Popper and all the rest - the reading for me was dreary and
dismal. Whoever it was that called economics the dismal science could
expand his definition.

-k

"Arch" wrote in message
...
Science is great, but not holy. I'm with Dave. I gave up and washed my
hands of that soapy LDD science, except for joshing Leif, long ago. I'll
sit by and await the results of those with a more inquiring mind and the
time to use or waste it. A chance observation isn't a scientific
experiment in which a theory is already held (sometimes too tightly) in
mind.

I think it's ok to use LDD or not to use it in whatever uncontrolled
methods we slobs (not you, Dave) mess around with. We feel no guilt for
not glimpsing the larger picture and take no blame for the descent of
man.

Empirically, Arch
***********************************************
p.s. I'm just kidding around in ignorance, but I have read some of the
ideas of Thomas Kuhn and others about the history and current concepts
of what science really is and scientists really are. For me, they are a
comfortable rebuttal to those who don't count medicine or social work
..or woodturning as science. A.

"Dan Bollinger" wrote in message
news:mxZke.4010$IC6.1750@attbi_s72...
I decided to try out the LDD method, and while the jury's still out on
the final result, I did a little research to try and figure out just
how and why it might work.

Prometheus, Great thread you started! I contacted the Forest Product
Labs
and asked them about LDD and gave them all the technical information you
and
everyone else has provided with the hopes that someone there, or in some
university somewhere, this had been investigated. Here is there reply:

"Dear Mr. Bollinger,
Thank you for your email inquiry! We do not have any information on this
method of stabilizing wood. We do have a packet of information that uses
PEG (polyethylene glycol) ---this method can be found in our Wood
Handbook,
Wood as an Engineering Material
(http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fp.../fplgtr113.htm) "

Not what I hoped for. Dan

====A few years ago,I went down that road with the FPL and, if I remember
correctly, didn't even get a reply. I also sent an email to Proctor and
Gamble setting forth the issue and got a non-responsive, politely dismissive
answer from them. As to all the sound and fury emitting above, I am of the
feeling that an interested, motivated person with a half-way decent
microscope could set up an experiment viewing the action of LDD in the
presence of wood cells. I am now accepting donations for the purchase of an
electron microscope.*G* A number of years ago, Lyn Mangiameli attempted to
run a survey on the use of LDD but got so few responses that no conclusive
data could be derived from it.

As it stands now, as it did a few years ago, we are left only with anecdotal
"evidence" as the efficacy of LDD. I haven't been able to turn for a couple
of years due to back and leg problems, so only have maybe three year's
experience with it. As I have had a sovereign experience with it, I highly
recommend it. In that time, I have not had to study the nature of wood, as
it seems LDD manages to trump such considerations. "Fait ce que voudra" as
our Eastern Canadian turners might say. In more usual 'Merikin parlance:
"Ya pays yer money and takes yer chances!"*G*

Leif

My apology, I didn't mean to offend you. I didn't check to see
how long you'd been posting, much less wonder how long you'd been
lurking.

Dave, No apology necessary, since I wasn't offended in the first place, just
setting things straight.

I was serious about you doing the legwork if you wanted to, and
getting back to us about it. It would be nice to know once and
for all what the mechanism is, and whether there are any grounds
to the LDD.

I was hoping someone else would take this on! I have a dozen more projects
than I need right now. Dan

LOL! When it comes up to speed the workpiece is a blur of movement. But
most cutting is going to be a slower speeds, so its not as scary as you'd
think. Also, I have a substantial guard over the mechanism.


"mac davis" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2005 02:11:54 GMT, "Dan Bollinger"

wrote:

(after oval, try something challenging like a hex turning lathe.. *g*


Mac, If I change the gearing it could! And turn tri-cornered and
quad-cornered, and... Dan


I'll test the prototype, Dan.. got a kevlar turning suit handy?


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

I just don't understand your problem Dan. Leif has said at least a
million
times the "process" works. How much more proof could you possibly
require?
...chuckle

I'm not sure what you find funny? I'm not saying the process doesn't work.
I think turners will benefit from know what chemical(s) in LD is the active
ingredient so we can use just that one and optimize the process. After all,
there are numerous reports of LDD failure. It would be good to reduce
those, no? Dan

====A few years ago,I went down that road with the FPL and, if I
remember
correctly, didn't even get a reply. I also sent an email to Proctor and
Gamble setting forth the issue and got a non-responsive, politely
dismissive
answer from them. As to all the sound and fury emitting above, I am of
the
feeling that an interested, motivated person with a half-way decent
microscope could set up an experiment viewing the action of LDD in the
presence of wood cells. I am now accepting donations for the purchase of
an
electron microscope.*G* A number of years ago, Lyn Mangiameli attempted
to
run a survey on the use of LDD but got so few responses that no conclusive
data could be derived from it.

As it stands now, as it did a few years ago, we are left only with
anecdotal
"evidence" as the efficacy of LDD. I haven't been able to turn for a
couple
of years due to back and leg problems, so only have maybe three year's
experience with it. As I have had a sovereign experience with it, I
highly
recommend it. In that time, I have not had to study the nature of wood,
as
it seems LDD manages to trump such considerations. "Fait ce que voudra" as
our Eastern Canadian turners might say. In more usual 'Merikin parlance:
"Ya pays yer money and takes yer chances!"*G*

Leif

I hear what you are saying and agree with all your points. I hope someone
picks up this banner and runs with it. Dan

Is this a great ng or what? It's like letters to the editor, but there's
no editor. A repeatable error (science) is truth until one day it's
not. I can't ask old Newton, but I know it's so because I read it in
"The Journal of Irreproducible results" and that authority verifies all
info on rcw posts.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



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

Dan Bollinger wrote:
I hear what you are saying and agree with all your points. I hope someone
picks up this banner and runs with it. Dan

It would/wood be nice if that were to happen, but it seems a
daunting task. It's too bad that Leif has problems turning d/t
back problems, the slo-mo lunges seem to help my back. PEG OTOH,
hasn't done much for wood when I've used it. The wood didn't
crack while it was submerged, but it cracked shortly after
turning. I did try the permutation of LDD when I first started
and found that the type of LDD didn't matter as much as the ration
of LDD:water. As I remember, The cheaper, Crystal/Octagon stuff
worked as well as the Costco stuff did, but if you went beyond 1:3
soap:water it stopped working acceptably, and that 1:1 was notably
better. Most of the problems reported were related to failure to
follow directions if I recall. Stuff like, I wiped it on and it
didn't work. Or I put one part soap in a zillion parts water and
it didn't work. The other popular one was i soaked it and turned
it then I let it dry and it cracked. i don't remember any
complaints when the wood was soaked in the proper solution, turned
and finished immediately. That also is my finding. wipe the LDD
off the wood, turn it to final thickness and apply finish w/o
allowing ti to dry beforehand.

Good luck,
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.Patinatools.org/

"Dan Bollinger" wrote in message
news:kQ2le.5379$g66.2243@attbi_s71...
I just don't understand your problem Dan. Leif has said at least a
million
times the "process" works. How much more proof could you possibly
require?
...chuckle

I'm not sure what you find funny? I'm not saying the process doesn't
work.
I think turners will benefit from know what chemical(s) in LD is the
active
ingredient so we can use just that one and optimize the process. After
all,
there are numerous reports of LDD failure. It would be good to reduce
those, no? Dan


Just my weird sense of humour Dan. Ignore it....! Once I reached the age
of reason I stopped believing in the tooth fairy.. I'm too old to start
believing in another fairy tale........ *#!-- LDD stops wood from
warping --!#*

--

Regards,
M.J. (Mike) Orr
www.island.net/~morr

Just my weird sense of humour Dan. Ignore it....! Once I reached the age
of reason I stopped believing in the tooth fairy.. I'm too old to start
believing in another fairy tale........ *#!-- LDD stops wood from
warping --!#*

OK, thanks for the clarification, Mike. Dan

"Dave in Fairfax" wrote in message
...
Dan Bollinger wrote:
I hear what you are saying and agree with all your points. I hope
someone
picks up this banner and runs with it. Dan

It would/wood be nice if that were to happen, but it seems a
daunting task. It's too bad that Leif has problems turning d/t
back problems, the slo-mo lunges seem to help my back. PEG OTOH,
hasn't done much for wood when I've used it. The wood didn't
crack while it was submerged, but it cracked shortly after
turning. I did try the permutation of LDD when I first started
and found that the type of LDD didn't matter as much as the ration
of LDD:water. As I remember, The cheaper, Crystal/Octagon stuff
worked as well as the Costco stuff did, but if you went beyond 1:3
soap:water it stopped working acceptably, and that 1:1 was notably
better. Most of the problems reported were related to failure to
follow directions if I recall. Stuff like, I wiped it on and it
didn't work. Or I put one part soap in a zillion parts water and
it didn't work. The other popular one was i soaked it and turned
it then I let it dry and it cracked. i don't remember any
complaints when the wood was soaked in the proper solution, turned
and finished immediately. That also is my finding. wipe the LDD
off the wood, turn it to final thickness and apply finish w/o
allowing ti to dry beforehand.

Good luck,
Dave in Fairfax

Oh, thank you, thank you, Dave! Be still my quivering heart! A
reproducible result! Come on, boys! Out of the woodwork with you and stand
proud and tall and triumphant with your own stories of the success of LDD.

In the beginning, there was the void and from the void anquished cries of
woodturners were heard. The Great Woodturner heard their cries and from
out of the void appeared "Kirkland Brand LDD." The turners were still in the
throes of despair, as the only instructions on the container had to do with
washing dishes -- in the sink, no less!! The Great Woodturner took pity on
them and called up one of their number on the Mountain and imparted the
secret to St. Ron of Kent., who then descended the mountain and dictated the
instructions to his acolyte Leif (Sainthood Application: Pending) who
proceeded through magickal means to transmit the Word in "The World-famous
Treatise on LDD" to the World of Woodturners. But there were scoffers and
naysayers about this Potion and they continued to spread doubt and deceit
about its miraculous powers over wood. Scientific proof, they cried!
Reproducible results they intoned! Quietly, with no fanfare, woodturners
began to accept the Way of LDD, content only in the knowledge that they no
longer had to deal with the vagaries of wood and the various voodoo ways of
readying it for sacrifice in boiling waters, WD40,microwaves, bagging,
baking, roasting, freezing, anti-freezing and *GASP!* airdrying for twenty
years! The quality of Faith in LDD was in the air and some seized upon it
as a drowning man might a life preserver! Slowly the membership grew
despite persecution by the Science Inquisitors. Percolating through the
group was a desire for a new prophet to appear and provide the proofs
demanded of LDD and to still these harpies of the God of Science. And so
they wait for the arrival of the new prophet and view with despair the
latest in wood treatments: diesel fuel! May the Great Woodturner have
mercy on their abused wood! This is an cautionary tale, and its ending is
yet to be writ!*G*

Leif

"Dave in Fairfax" wrote in message
snip of anecdotal evidence and truly lousy spelling (appropriate
shame)

Leif Thorvaldson wrote:
Oh, thank you, thank you, Dave! Be still my quivering heart! A
reproducible result! Come on, boys! Out of the woodwork with you and stand
proud and tall and triumphant with your own stories of the success of LDD.
snip of tongue-in-cheek testifying

Leif it won't help. I haven't said anything that hasn't been said
before, and unless it's quantified and truly reproducible, it's
anecdotal. Problem seems to be getting people to actually follow
the instructions. Go figure. %-) The question beyond "Does it
work" seems to be, "What is the mechanism." I suspect that until
the mechanism is deterrmined the prcess will continue to be seen
as witchcraft. Now that doesn't worry me much, one of my in-laws
ancestors met an unseemly fate at Salem, but it seems to cast a
pall over the souls of some.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.Patinatools.org/

"Dave in Fairfax" wrote in message
...
PEG OTOH,
hasn't done much for wood when I've used it. The wood didn't
crack while it was submerged, but it cracked shortly after
turning.

Oddly, this is one method that really does work, though what's left isn't
pretty.

The soluble glycol remains inside the cells after drying. Of course,
unlike the more magical methods, this and other soaks take weeks or months
to get into the wood, and the solutions have to be renewed to retain their
effect.

George wrote:
Oddly, this is one method that really does work, though what's left isn't
pretty.
The soluble glycol remains inside the cells after drying. Of course,
unlike the more magical methods, this and other soaks take weeks or months
to get into the wood, and the solutions have to be renewed to retain their
effect.
I left the wood in it for a couple of weeks because I wasn't sure
how fast it would infiltrate, but the results were less than
stellar. Sorry. YMMV.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.Patinatools.org/

On Wed, 25 May 2005 10:00:25 -0700, "Leif Thorvaldson"
wrote:

====A few years ago,I went down that road with the FPL and, if I remember
correctly, didn't even get a reply. I also sent an email to Proctor and
Gamble setting forth the issue and got a non-responsive, politely dismissive
answer from them. As to all the sound and fury emitting above, I am of the
feeling that an interested, motivated person with a half-way decent
microscope could set up an experiment viewing the action of LDD in the
presence of wood cells. I am now accepting donations for the purchase of an
electron microscope.*G* A number of years ago, Lyn Mangiameli attempted to
run a survey on the use of LDD but got so few responses that no conclusive
data could be derived from it.

As it stands now, as it did a few years ago, we are left only with anecdotal
"evidence" as the efficacy of LDD. I haven't been able to turn for a couple
of years due to back and leg problems, so only have maybe three year's
experience with it. As I have had a sovereign experience with it, I highly
recommend it. In that time, I have not had to study the nature of wood, as
it seems LDD manages to trump such considerations. "Fait ce que voudra" as
our Eastern Canadian turners might say. In more usual 'Merikin parlance:
"Ya pays yer money and takes yer chances!"*G*


Well, I've done two turnings with wet wood, one with LDD, the other
without. Neither were bowls, they were both lamp forms of
approximately the same height and diameter. with the same finishing
method. The one treated with LDD is still looking like it did when I
took it off the lathe, and the other has a large crack on either side.

No, that isn't scientific- it's not even a good hypothesis yet, but it
is a good avenue for possible investigation, and well worth the chance
taken with free wood!

After all this hullaballo, I'm going to make sure to keep a record of
things, and try and come up with something that is at least a little
better than a mystical alchemical property. *G*

On Wed, 25 May 2005 19:49:42 GMT, Dave in Fairfax
wrote:

Dan Bollinger wrote:
I hear what you are saying and agree with all your points. I hope someone
picks up this banner and runs with it. Dan

It would/wood be nice if that were to happen, but it seems a
daunting task.

I'll give a go, at the risk of becoming a snake oil man. Don't expect
much on it until near the end of next winter, though! Right now I'm
on 50 hour minimum weeks at work, so it's better to just whistle and
turn when I get the chance than it is to botch up a study because of
fatigue. Things'll slow down in the fall, though- and I'll start
scratching my head about it really hard then.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:41:57 GMT, "Dan Bollinger"
wrote:

I have this visual of you in a controlled environment, using those things that
you stick your arms in to handle radioactive material in the next room.. lol


LOL! When it comes up to speed the workpiece is a blur of movement. But
most cutting is going to be a slower speeds, so its not as scary as you'd
think. Also, I have a substantial guard over the mechanism.


"mac davis" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 May 2005 02:11:54 GMT, "Dan Bollinger"

wrote:

(after oval, try something challenging like a hex turning lathe.. *g*


Mac, If I change the gearing it could! And turn tri-cornered and
quad-cornered, and... Dan


I'll test the prototype, Dan.. got a kevlar turning suit handy?


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing




mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"Dave in Fairfax" wrote in message
...
George wrote:
Oddly, this is one method that really does work, though what's left
isn't
pretty.
The soluble glycol remains inside the cells after drying. Of course,
unlike the more magical methods, this and other soaks take weeks or
months
to get into the wood, and the solutions have to be renewed to retain
their
effect.
I left the wood in it for a couple of weeks because I wasn't sure
how fast it would infiltrate, but the results were less than
stellar. Sorry. YMMV.


I read the book they had at the time - Working Green Wood With PEG - I think
it was. Still have a vat for carving mallets, an excellent use for PEG, in
my estimation. It fills the voids with that waxy semi-solid, and it draws
moisture from the air more than plain wood. Makes for a decent dead blow,
with a surface that hits with a damp "thunk" rather than a sharp crack.
Easier on the elbow.

Just came in from carving bowls into five spoons with one. Relative
humidity is 75% by the hygrometer, so the surface feels almost wet to the
touch.

No, that isn't scientific- it's not even a good hypothesis yet, but it
is a good avenue for possible investigation, and well worth the chance
taken with free wood!

Actually, it is enough of an observation to form a hypothesis.

I have this visual of you in a controlled environment, using those things
that
you stick your arms in to handle radioactive material in the next room..
lol

LOL! Hey, why not? It would look good in a photograph and I expect I
could charge more for my work, too!

"Dan Bollinger" wrote in message
news:N3wle.9495$PS3.2187@attbi_s22...
No, that isn't scientific- it's not even a good hypothesis yet, but it
is a good avenue for possible investigation, and well worth the chance
taken with free wood!

Actually, it is enough of an observation to form a hypothesis.

===Whose length is, as everyone knows, equal to the sum of the squares of
two sides of a theoretically correct triangle. That sum, divided by 2
yields the correct length of the hypothesis. I think you guys are on to
something here!!!*G*

Leif

Actually, it is enough of an observation to form a hypothesis.

===Whose length is, as everyone knows, equal to the sum of the squares of
two sides of a theoretically correct triangle. That sum, divided by 2
yields the correct length of the hypothesis. I think you guys are on to
something here!!!*G*

Leif

What do you mean, "'us guys?" YOU started this!

On Fri, 27 May 2005 03:01:01 GMT, "Dan Bollinger"
wrote:

I have this visual of you in a controlled environment, using those things
that
you stick your arms in to handle radioactive material in the next room..
lol

LOL! Hey, why not? It would look good in a photograph and I expect I
could charge more for my work, too!

I have a feeling that I might wish I had one.. I'm going to try finish turning a
bowl tonight that I roughed out last night and soaked in my first LDD
experiment... hope it just throws soap around, not blows giant bubbles.. roflmao


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"Dan Bollinger" wrote in message
news:CSDle.10335$PS3.6821@attbi_s22...
Actually, it is enough of an observation to form a hypothesis.

===Whose length is, as everyone knows, equal to the sum of the squares
of
two sides of a theoretically correct triangle. That sum, divided by 2
yields the correct length of the hypothesis. I think you guys are on to
something here!!!*G*

Leif

What do you mean, "'us guys?" YOU started this!

==== Now wait just a cottonpickin' minute! I had been sitting quietly at
my computer minding my own business (having been cowed previously by the
reactionaries) when that darned Prometheus guy reignited the whole issue
(slight play on words there for the cognoscenti of Greek mythology). *G*

Leif

What do you mean, "'us guys?" YOU started this!

==== Now wait just a cottonpickin' minute! I had been sitting quietly at
my computer minding my own business (having been cowed previously by the
reactionaries) when that darned Prometheus guy reignited the whole issue
(slight play on words there for the cognoscenti of Greek mythology). *G*

Well, OK, then. Let's agree to blame it on HIM! points finger at
Prometheus Dan

On Fri, 27 May 2005 11:54:18 -0700, "Leif Thorvaldson"
wrote:


"Dan Bollinger" wrote in message
news:CSDle.10335$PS3.6821@attbi_s22...
Actually, it is enough of an observation to form a hypothesis.

===Whose length is, as everyone knows, equal to the sum of the squares
of
two sides of a theoretically correct triangle. That sum, divided by 2
yields the correct length of the hypothesis. I think you guys are on to
something here!!!*G*

Leif

What do you mean, "'us guys?" YOU started this!

==== Now wait just a cottonpickin' minute! I had been sitting quietly at
my computer minding my own business (having been cowed previously by the
reactionaries) when that darned Prometheus guy reignited the whole issue
(slight play on words there for the cognoscenti of Greek mythology). *G*

Well, I just hate to see a guy cowed.

On Fri, 27 May 2005 19:45:38 GMT, "Dan Bollinger"
wrote:


What do you mean, "'us guys?" YOU started this!

==== Now wait just a cottonpickin' minute! I had been sitting quietly at
my computer minding my own business (having been cowed previously by the
reactionaries) when that darned Prometheus guy reignited the whole issue
(slight play on words there for the cognoscenti of Greek mythology). *G*

Well, OK, then. Let's agree to blame it on HIM! points finger at
Prometheus Dan

Hey wait, that sounds kinda familiar- next you'll be grabbing for the
adamantine chains... And then people wonder why I don't put my e-mail
address in my sig line!

And then people wonder why I don't put my e-mail
address in my sig line!

Speaking of which, please email me, Dan