Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodturning (rec.crafts.woodturning) To discuss tools, techniques, styles, materials, shows and competitions, education and educational materials related to woodturning. All skill levels are welcome, from art turners to production turners, beginners to masters. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Messing around with the LDD method
Hello all,
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. A quick Google search turned up several high school science experiments that used LDD in a 20:1 to 10:1 (Water:LDD) solution to break the cell membranes of both human cheek cells and onion cells. PBS's NOVA referred to this as "lysing" in their explaination of the experiment. The broken cells released their contents into the solution so that the DNA could be extracted and spooled for genetic typing. Further searching showed that there is a single chemical that can be used for the same purpose, which I would expect is one of the ingredients of LDD- Sodium Laurylsulfate ( C12H25NaO4S ) AKA: n-Dodecylsulfate Sodium Salt CAS no: 151-21-3 Since the experiment in question worked with both onions and cheek cells, it is fairly likely that this salt is able to break open not only animal cells with a fatty membrane, but the sturdier plant cell walls as well. Once the walls are split, the contents are released and the water can be pulled out of the wood (somehow, that's how- I'm a steelworker, not a chemist!) Like I said above, I tried the LDD method, but I really did not enjoy the sloppy slurry that came off the piece for the first several cuts. I'm going to blame that on the glycerine in the soap, just for the heck of it. If this is the chemical that does the job of preventing wet wood from cracking, it may be a good deal cleaner and less expensive than buying large containers of dishwashing detergent. If anyone feels inclined to experiment with it a bit, there are a few questions that obviously need to be answered. First, does it work at all with the Sodium Laurylsulfate, and if so, at what solution? It's a safe bet that if this is indeed an ingredient in LDD (I couldn't find an ingredient list on the bottle) it is severely diluted in the final solution, so a lot less than a 50/50 mixture should be needed. The DNA experiements called for a 10% solution when using the chemical above. Second, If the method does work- how does splitting the cell walls throughout the wood affect the finished product? While it may prevent cracking, It seems rather unlikely that it can eliminate shrinking and warping. It may just be a nice fast way to dry out wet wood- or it may cause cells to retain their shape because the water is able to leave the cell through a crack, rather than collapsing due to the loss of turgor pressure. Third, how is water pulled out of the cells and into the solution? In the experiments, a bit of salt was added to the mixture (1 teaspoon salt to 1 cup of water, and 20 drops of the 10% Sodium Laurylsulfate solution), but I'm not entirely sure if making the solution salty would dessicate the wood. I know that salt can trap water, but if it's already dissolved in the water, who's to say it isn't already loaded with all the water it can handle? Fourth, does a guy need to wear gloves when handling the piece to prevent some nasty dermatitis? It's also a good bet that LDD contains moisturizers to protect your hands. Fifth, how does a solution like this affect various finishes- or does it not affect them at all? And Sixth, is it possible to buy this chemical without a special license? Of course, all of this may be just a bunch of hoodoo, but if there is something actually going on, it may be very useful to all the turners here if the chemical reactions can be isolated, explained and replicated. If any of you are interested in biological chemistry and can figure this out, let the rest of us know- or maybe whip up a bunch and sell it on your website or something. I'll probably mess with it a bit, but I've got too many other things to do, and not enough time to do them all! Anyhow, thought I'd share. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Prometheus wrote: Fourth, does a guy need to wear gloves when handling the piece to prevent some nasty dermatitis? It's also a good bet that LDD contains moisturizers to protect your hands. And Sixth, is it possible to buy this chemical without a special license? Well, we put the stuff in our mouths by way of toothpaste, wash our bodies and hair with it. And according to the link below costs $12.60 a gallon: http://www.chemistrystore.com/sodium_lauryl_sulfate.htm |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Prometheus wrote: Like I said above, I tried the LDD method, but I really did not enjoy the sloppy slurry that came off the piece for the first several cuts. I'm going to blame that on the glycerine in the soap, just for the heck of it. I always pull the piece out of the mix and let it drain for at least 24 hours. Then really wipe dry with paper towels. Certainly no more messy than turning green wood. Fifth, how does a solution like this affect various finishes- or does it not affect them at all? I had problems with LDD and finishes mainly because i was leaving really punky spalted wood in soak for weeks. The LDD did 100% penetration and would not accept any finished. As a remedy i ended up doing multiple hot water rinses and micorwaving until all LDD was gone. A long time wasting process but NO cracks, No distortion, and NO shrinkage. Similar pieces of the same wood without LDD were also turned and all were badly cracked, distorted and shrinkage was evident. They were turned and finished in one go using either BLO and shellac or lacquer. I haven't used LDD on anything recently and have regretted it! -- Remove no & spam to email meet me at: http://peterhyde.bravehost.com/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I haven't used LDD on anything recently and have regretted it!
So why did you stop using it? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Prometheus" wrote in message ... Hello all, 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. Of course there are some who believe it's the hydroxyl group that works the "magic" you attribute to the sulfate ion. Oh yes, the only living cells in a tree are _not_ wood. Just in case you were interested in doing a little research.... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hello there, Prometheus, could you use some colored dye in there with it next time, and report back to all of us, of how far al this chemical hocus-pocus penetrates the wood, and rips apart the cells to release the water ??? I am sure many inquiring minds like to know Have fun and take care Leo Van Der Loo Prometheus wrote: Hello all, 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 22 May 2005 08:32:32 -0700, Owen Lowe
wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: Fourth, does a guy need to wear gloves when handling the piece to prevent some nasty dermatitis? It's also a good bet that LDD contains moisturizers to protect your hands. And Sixth, is it possible to buy this chemical without a special license? Well, we put the stuff in our mouths by way of toothpaste, wash our bodies and hair with it. And according to the link below costs $12.60 a gallon: Ah, you must have had a better search string than I, I couldn't find a vendor. http://www.chemistrystore.com/sodium_lauryl_sulfate.htm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 22 May 2005 18:38:57 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:
"Prometheus" wrote in message .. . Hello all, 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. Of course there are some who believe it's the hydroxyl group that works the "magic" you attribute to the sulfate ion. It could be the artificial coloring in the LDD, for all I know. I just figured it'd be a good conversation. Oh yes, the only living cells in a tree are _not_ wood. That's true, but if the chemical cracks the xylem, then it might stop them from collapsing. Just in case you were interested in doing a little research.... Well, of course. But it's a slow process. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:37:27 -0400, Leo Van Der Loo
wrote: Hello there, Prometheus, could you use some colored dye in there with it next time, and report back to all of us, of how far al this chemical hocus-pocus penetrates the wood, and rips apart the cells to release the water ??? I am sure many inquiring minds like to know That's not a terrible idea, either- but I get the feeling this has all been hashed out before. FWIW, the birch I tried it on was signifigantly more wet in the center than it was before I soaked it. At least the water got in, if not the chemicals. I'll try some dye, just to satisfy my own curiousity. It may be hocus-pocus, but the test piece did not crack, and the control piece did- so something is happening. Have fun and take care Leo Van Der Loo Prometheus wrote: Hello all, 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Prometheus" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 May 2005 18:38:57 -0400, "George" george@least wrote: Oh yes, the only living cells in a tree are _not_ wood. That's true, but if the chemical cracks the xylem, then it might stop them from collapsing. The point is, your "reasoning" is as strange as the alcohol folks at the outset. If it lyses cells with cytoplasm, it must affect empty cells? And now you hypothesise that if it destroys existing structure it will keep it from collapsing ? A couple billion years of trial and accidental success, and now you think what holds a sequoia aloft can be improved by destroying its structure? I think you'll have fun, but you might want to temper your research with deductive rather than inductive reasoning. Just in case you were interested in doing a little research.... Well, of course. But it's a slow process. Beware the halo effect. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Prometheus" wrote in message ... Hello all, 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. A quick Google search turned up several high school science experiments that used LDD in a 20:1 to 10:1 (Water:LDD) solution to break the cell membranes of both human cheek cells and onion cells. PBS's NOVA referred to this as "lysing" in their explaination of the experiment. The broken cells released their contents into the solution so that the DNA could be extracted and spooled for genetic typing. Further searching showed that there is a single chemical that can be used for the same purpose, which I would expect is one of the ingredients of LDD- Sodium Laurylsulfate ( C12H25NaO4S ) AKA: n-Dodecylsulfate Sodium Salt CAS no: 151-21-3 Since the experiment in question worked with both onions and cheek cells, it is fairly likely that this salt is able to break open not only animal cells with a fatty membrane, but the sturdier plant cell walls as well. Once the walls are split, the contents are released and the water can be pulled out of the wood (somehow, that's how- I'm a steelworker, not a chemist!) Like I said above, I tried the LDD method, but I really did not enjoy the sloppy slurry that came off the piece for the first several cuts. I'm going to blame that on the glycerine in the soap, just for the heck of it. If this is the chemical that does the job of preventing wet wood from cracking, it may be a good deal cleaner and less expensive than buying large containers of dishwashing detergent. If anyone feels inclined to experiment with it a bit, there are a few questions that obviously need to be answered. First, does it work at all with the Sodium Laurylsulfate, and if so, at what solution? It's a safe bet that if this is indeed an ingredient in LDD (I couldn't find an ingredient list on the bottle) it is severely diluted in the final solution, so a lot less than a 50/50 mixture should be needed. The DNA experiements called for a 10% solution when using the chemical above. Second, If the method does work- how does splitting the cell walls throughout the wood affect the finished product? While it may prevent cracking, It seems rather unlikely that it can eliminate shrinking and warping. It may just be a nice fast way to dry out wet wood- or it may cause cells to retain their shape because the water is able to leave the cell through a crack, rather than collapsing due to the loss of turgor pressure. Third, how is water pulled out of the cells and into the solution? In the experiments, a bit of salt was added to the mixture (1 teaspoon salt to 1 cup of water, and 20 drops of the 10% Sodium Laurylsulfate solution), but I'm not entirely sure if making the solution salty would dessicate the wood. I know that salt can trap water, but if it's already dissolved in the water, who's to say it isn't already loaded with all the water it can handle? Fourth, does a guy need to wear gloves when handling the piece to prevent some nasty dermatitis? It's also a good bet that LDD contains moisturizers to protect your hands. Fifth, how does a solution like this affect various finishes- or does it not affect them at all? And Sixth, is it possible to buy this chemical without a special license? Of course, all of this may be just a bunch of hoodoo, but if there is something actually going on, it may be very useful to all the turners here if the chemical reactions can be isolated, explained and replicated. If any of you are interested in biological chemistry and can figure this out, let the rest of us know- or maybe whip up a bunch and sell it on your website or something. I'll probably mess with it a bit, but I've got too many other things to do, and not enough time to do them all! Anyhow, thought I'd share. Prometheus: A noble and worthwhile thought and sharing, but be prepared to suffer the fate of your namesake. The LDD topic arouses all sorts of reactions from turners. We have speculated on this before and you bring up some interesting points, but "we" decided that it would take a scientific investigation into the actual effects of LDD on wood. The cost is prohibitive. Perhaps some scientist can obtain a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to pursue this. After all, if they can support artists who produce such things as "**** Jesus," a few million for a study that might produce evidence of global warming in an LDD solution should be a snap!. In the meantime, take good care of your liver! *G* Leif |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 23 May 2005 06:46:13 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:
"Prometheus" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 22 May 2005 18:38:57 -0400, "George" george@least wrote: Oh yes, the only living cells in a tree are _not_ wood. That's true, but if the chemical cracks the xylem, then it might stop them from collapsing. The point is, your "reasoning" is as strange as the alcohol folks at the outset. If it lyses cells with cytoplasm, it must affect empty cells? And now you hypothesise that if it destroys existing structure it will keep it from collapsing ? A couple billion years of trial and accidental success, and now you think what holds a sequoia aloft can be improved by destroying its structure? I think you'll have fun, but you might want to temper your research with deductive rather than inductive reasoning. Points well taken- as I stated in the original message, I'm just an amateur with little or no knowledge of organic chemestry. If I knew all this stuff, I probably wouldn't be fabricating for a living! Just in case you were interested in doing a little research.... Well, of course. But it's a slow process. Beware the halo effect. Not sure what you mean... but I'll watch out for it if you care to elaborate. If you mean not taking some hit-or-miss hypotheses to heart, I imagine I'll be alright on that score. I just like wonder about things. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 23 May 2005 10:16:38 -0700, "Leif Thorvaldson"
wrote: Prometheus: A noble and worthwhile thought and sharing, but be prepared to suffer the fate of your namesake. The LDD topic arouses all sorts of reactions from turners. We have speculated on this before and you bring up some interesting points, but "we" decided that it would take a scientific investigation into the actual effects of LDD on wood. The cost is prohibitive. Nonsense! There are all sorts of experiments that can be done on the cheap- it's wood, not nitroglycerine! Perhaps some scientist can obtain a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to pursue this. After all, if they can support artists who produce such things as "**** Jesus," a few million for a study that might produce evidence of global warming in an LDD solution should be a snap!. In the meantime, take good care of your liver! *G* Leif |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Prometheus" wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 May 2005 06:46:13 -0400, "George" george@least wrote: Beware the halo effect. Not sure what you mean... but I'll watch out for it if you care to elaborate. If you mean not taking some hit-or-miss hypotheses to heart, I imagine I'll be alright on that score. I just like wonder about things. Using a primary research tool: http://www.metacrawler.com/info.meta.../-/-/-/-/-/-/1 Two of the definitions apply : Because the "discovery" was yours, you give it magical properties. Assuming, for instance that detergent breaks down wood structure because it ruptures living cells. The halo has enveloped a presumption. Because you have formulated an hypothesis, you tend to find only for that hypothesis. Experimental bias. Learn about wood first, and you'll find it much easier to deal with it. http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fp.../fplgtr113.htm |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Nonsense! There are all sorts of experiments that can be done on the
cheap- it's wood, not nitroglycerine! I agree. The first step is just to identify and test the individual chemical compounds in LDD one at a time and see if one produces the desired results. If not, then begin combining them in pairs. It is so simple, I'm surprised one of the LDD fans haven't tried this already. Dan |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Perhaps some scientist can obtain a grant from the National
Endowment for the Arts to pursue this. Leif, I'm sure you are just being funny and not serious, but just in case: The NEA accepts applications from artists not scientists. Their mission isn't to promote science, but art. Even if you were going to eventually use LDD for art, a grant for LDD would be outside the NEA's mission. Dan |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:55:26 GMT, "Dan Bollinger"
wrote: Nonsense! There are all sorts of experiments that can be done on the cheap- it's wood, not nitroglycerine! I agree. The first step is just to identify and test the individual chemical compounds in LDD one at a time and see if one produces the desired results. If not, then begin combining them in pairs. It is so simple, I'm surprised one of the LDD fans haven't tried this already. Dan Dan.. as one about to try the LDD thing, I think most folks will just try it and if it works, continue using it... I don't have any motivation to research how they made the parts of my lathe... it works and I'm happy.. YMMV mac Please remove splinters before emailing |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Bollinger" wrote in message news:ntGke.4925$PS3.3049@attbi_s22... Perhaps some scientist can obtain a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to pursue this. Leif, I'm sure you are just being funny and not serious, but just in case: The NEA accepts applications from artists not scientists. Their mission isn't to promote science, but art. Even if you were going to eventually use LDD for art, a grant for LDD would be outside the NEA's mission. Dan Dan: Are you saying that woodturning isn't an "art?" If it is in a museum, it must be art!! LDD is just a means to enhance and better practice our art. If you examine the NEA's granting parameters, I suggest a clever woodturner like Arch could come up with some suitable musing that could justify such a grant! (TIC!) Leif |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe LDD is just related to voodoo... it puts a hex on the wood and the
wood in turn gives up its water... maybe it is like the phrase "suck it up".... i figure it this way, it makes for a good spirited debate. and, if it works, it works, and if it doesnt, it doesnt. it works for one person (at least according to leif). so, logic would suggest that if somebody else did the EXACT same thing, the same result would happen. either way, if it works, does it really matter how or why? that is really the question. along that line, if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? if it falls on a mime, does anybody care? I am game to give it a shot and see what happens. i figure it cant be any worse than cooking. It took me 65 batches of salsa before i got it just right. So, i figure my hands will be soft and the wood may (or may not) check. And it will only cost me a bottle (or three) of LDD and some time. Since there is mostly drivel on tv, i figure i am not really missing anything. Rob "Prometheus" wrote in message ... Hello all, 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. A quick Google search turned up several high school science experiments that used LDD in a 20:1 to 10:1 (Water:LDD) solution to break the cell membranes of both human cheek cells and onion cells. PBS's NOVA referred to this as "lysing" in their explaination of the experiment. The broken cells released their contents into the solution so that the DNA could be extracted and spooled for genetic typing. Further searching showed that there is a single chemical that can be used for the same purpose, which I would expect is one of the ingredients of LDD- Sodium Laurylsulfate ( C12H25NaO4S ) AKA: n-Dodecylsulfate Sodium Salt CAS no: 151-21-3 Since the experiment in question worked with both onions and cheek cells, it is fairly likely that this salt is able to break open not only animal cells with a fatty membrane, but the sturdier plant cell walls as well. Once the walls are split, the contents are released and the water can be pulled out of the wood (somehow, that's how- I'm a steelworker, not a chemist!) Like I said above, I tried the LDD method, but I really did not enjoy the sloppy slurry that came off the piece for the first several cuts. I'm going to blame that on the glycerine in the soap, just for the heck of it. If this is the chemical that does the job of preventing wet wood from cracking, it may be a good deal cleaner and less expensive than buying large containers of dishwashing detergent. If anyone feels inclined to experiment with it a bit, there are a few questions that obviously need to be answered. First, does it work at all with the Sodium Laurylsulfate, and if so, at what solution? It's a safe bet that if this is indeed an ingredient in LDD (I couldn't find an ingredient list on the bottle) it is severely diluted in the final solution, so a lot less than a 50/50 mixture should be needed. The DNA experiements called for a 10% solution when using the chemical above. Second, If the method does work- how does splitting the cell walls throughout the wood affect the finished product? While it may prevent cracking, It seems rather unlikely that it can eliminate shrinking and warping. It may just be a nice fast way to dry out wet wood- or it may cause cells to retain their shape because the water is able to leave the cell through a crack, rather than collapsing due to the loss of turgor pressure. Third, how is water pulled out of the cells and into the solution? In the experiments, a bit of salt was added to the mixture (1 teaspoon salt to 1 cup of water, and 20 drops of the 10% Sodium Laurylsulfate solution), but I'm not entirely sure if making the solution salty would dessicate the wood. I know that salt can trap water, but if it's already dissolved in the water, who's to say it isn't already loaded with all the water it can handle? Fourth, does a guy need to wear gloves when handling the piece to prevent some nasty dermatitis? It's also a good bet that LDD contains moisturizers to protect your hands. Fifth, how does a solution like this affect various finishes- or does it not affect them at all? And Sixth, is it possible to buy this chemical without a special license? Of course, all of this may be just a bunch of hoodoo, but if there is something actually going on, it may be very useful to all the turners here if the chemical reactions can be isolated, explained and replicated. If any of you are interested in biological chemistry and can figure this out, let the rest of us know- or maybe whip up a bunch and sell it on your website or something. I'll probably mess with it a bit, but I've got too many other things to do, and not enough time to do them all! Anyhow, thought I'd share. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Leif, I'm sure you are just being funny and not serious, but just in
case: The NEA accepts applications from artists not scientists. Their mission isn't to promote science, but art. Even if you were going to eventually use LDD for art, a grant for LDD would be outside the NEA's mission. Dan Dan: Are you saying that woodturning isn't an "art?" If it is in a museum, it must be art!! LDD is just a means to enhance and better practice our art. If you examine the NEA's granting parameters, I suggest a clever woodturner like Arch could come up with some suitable musing that could justify such a grant! (TIC!) Leif, Leif, Leif. Maybe if I said it differently or louder you'll understand. I said RESEARCHING THE CHEMICAL SCIENCE OF THE WOOD DESSICATION PROCESS is not art. Geez. Dan |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I agree. The first step is just to identify and test the individual
chemical compounds in LDD one at a time and see if one produces the desired results. If not, then begin combining them in pairs. It is so simple, I'm surprised one of the LDD fans haven't tried this already. Dan Dan.. as one about to try the LDD thing, I think most folks will just try it and if it works, continue using it... I don't have any motivation to research how they made the parts of my lathe... it works and I'm happy.. YMMV mac, I'm not saying you should. I'm saying there are people here who may find that challenging. But then you are talking to a fellow who is not only motivated to research how a lathe works, but building an oval turning lathe from scratch. http://www.claycritters.com/lathe/ Takes all kinds, doesn't it! Dan |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
====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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:14:35 GMT, "Dan Bollinger"
wrote: Dan.. as one about to try the LDD thing, I think most folks will just try it and if it works, continue using it... I don't have any motivation to research how they made the parts of my lathe... it works and I'm happy.. YMMV mac, I'm not saying you should. I'm saying there are people here who may find that challenging. But then you are talking to a fellow who is not only motivated to research how a lathe works, but building an oval turning lathe from scratch. http://www.claycritters.com/lathe/ Takes all kinds, doesn't it! Dan hey, one man's fetish is another's hobby, right? it's why there are groups like this, because folks take interest in things... (after oval, try something challenging like a hex turning lathe.. *g* mac Please remove splinters before emailing |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Rob McConachie" wrote in message ... Maybe LDD is just related to voodoo... it puts a hex on the wood and the wood in turn gives up its water... maybe it is like the phrase "suck it up".... i figure it this way, it makes for a good spirited debate. and, if it works, it works, and if it doesnt, it doesnt. it works for one person (at least according to leif). so, logic would suggest that if somebody else did the EXACT same thing, the same result would happen. either way, if it works, does it really matter how or why? that is really the question. along that line, if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? if it falls on a mime, does anybody care? I am game to give it a shot and see what happens. i figure it cant be any worse than cooking. It took me 65 batches of salsa before i got it just right. So, i figure my hands will be soft and the wood may (or may not) check. And it will only cost me a bottle (or three) of LDD and some time. Since there is mostly drivel on tv, i figure i am not really missing anything. Rob =====Gosh, Rob! Does that mean you don't watch the LDDs, errh, I mean the "soaps?" *G* Leif |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
(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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Bollinger" wrote in message news:K9Rke.6440$Is4.2479@attbi_s21... (after oval, try something challenging like a hex turning lathe.. *g* Mac, If I change the gearing it could! And turn tri-cornered and quad-cornered, and... Dan ======================== Dan, You don't even have to change gears to do tri and quad figures, just offset centers and you have it. Ken Moon Webberville, TX. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Bollinger" wrote in message news:4JNke.6037$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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 24 May 2005 07:46:45 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:
"Prometheus" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 23 May 2005 06:46:13 -0400, "George" george@least wrote: Beware the halo effect. Not sure what you mean... but I'll watch out for it if you care to elaborate. If you mean not taking some hit-or-miss hypotheses to heart, I imagine I'll be alright on that score. I just like wonder about things. Using a primary research tool: http://www.metacrawler.com/info.meta.../-/-/-/-/-/-/1 Two of the definitions apply : Because the "discovery" was yours, you give it magical properties. Assuming, for instance that detergent breaks down wood structure because it ruptures living cells. The halo has enveloped a presumption. Because you have formulated an hypothesis, you tend to find only for that hypothesis. Experimental bias. Gotcha. Like I said above, it was just thinking aloud- I know my limitations when it comes to chemistry! Learn about wood first, and you'll find it much easier to deal with it. http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fp.../fplgtr113.htm Thanks for the link. I'm too tired to read it right now, but I've got it bookmarked. After getting some projects under my belt, I'm just starting to get into the properties of the wood, so I'm sure the link'll get some use! |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:14:35 GMT, "Dan Bollinger"
wrote: mac, I'm not saying you should. I'm saying there are people here who may find that challenging. But then you are talking to a fellow who is not only motivated to research how a lathe works, but building an oval turning lathe from scratch. http://www.claycritters.com/lathe/ Say, that looks pretty nice. You know, since looks like you've already got quite a bit invested in it, and you're concerned about the x/y router table interfering with making curves, you might want to take the extra step of getting a CNC controller and some servo motors for the table- then you can set it to cut curves all day with no worries. Something like this would do the trick, though I have no idea who makes the best one for the job. http://www.neecontrols.com/amc4c2.html Takes all kinds, doesn't it! Dan |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Dan,
You don't even have to change gears to do tri and quad figures, just offset centers and you have it. Sorta. On my machine the workpiece is constantly offsetting, making a smooth transition from the curved side to a curved corner. Just as there is a difference between offset turning and oval/elliptical turning. Offset turning leaves you with and edge where the two arcs intersect. Dan |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Well, that's enough for some, but hardly scientific.
Well, its certainly more that not doing anything, which is what I'm hearing from the group. 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. You make good points, and they are quite true, and setting up all these hurdles to jump is more discouraging than encouraging, to me. Your point seems to be "we can't do anything unless we have a grant, fancy equipment, and set up a random control trial." Which is a load of cr*p when you consider how many scientific advances have occurred in garages. Besides, before you can start an experiment you need a hypothesis and we don't have enough observable data to warrant creating a hypothesis yet. That is the role of testing, to see if an observable effect exists. What I'm saying is that we don't know much about LDD, but we'd know a lot more with just a little empirical testing. No reason to get NASA, Bell Labs, or Sandia involved in this project, unless of course you are a beltway bandit and hoping to score a grant? Dan |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:01:55 GMT, "Dan Bollinger"
wrote: Perhaps some scientist can obtain a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to pursue this. Leif, I'm sure you are just being funny and not serious, but just in case: The NEA accepts applications from artists not scientists. Their mission isn't to promote science, but art. Even if you were going to eventually use LDD for art, a grant for LDD would be outside the NEA's mission. Dan NEA probably would not- but a R&D dept for a large sawmill (if any of them have such a beast these days) might be interested in a new way to stabilize wood. Especially if it managed to decrease the amount of shrinkage- imagine all the essentially "free" wood they'd have if a piece of timber could be cut to finished size and they didn't have to account for shrinkage. Could save space when storing if the lumber didn't have to be stickered as well. Space is always at a premium anywhere! |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Say, that looks pretty nice. You know, since looks like you've
already got quite a bit invested in it, and you're concerned about the x/y router table interfering with making curves, you might want to take the extra step of getting a CNC controller and some servo motors for the table- then you can set it to cut curves all day with no worries. Thanks! Actually, I have more time than cash invested. I probably have less invested than a new One-Way lathe costs. A lot of the parts were scavenged, bartered, or won on eBay. The Thompson slides 'could' be fitted with servo motors, and I know that there are little PC solutions for running XY tables, but I'd rather not. Even though turning a crank isn't the same enjoyment as gripping a gouge, I've been doing that for years on my metal lathe and mill. And I don't have servos on them, either. However, it would be a great solution if I needed mass quantities of the same shape for some reason. Dan |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Bollinger wrote:
snip Well, its certainly more that not doing anything, which is what I'm hearing from the group. snip The reason that you're not hearing anything from the group is evident if you do a google on this. Most who have been here more than a couple of years have been down this road so many times that we can find our way in the dark. Nothing conclusive has been found other than the soap:water ratio becomes critical below a certain level. It gets numbing after a time. By all means, go ahead and run the tests, make your own concusions and let us know what you come up with. 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/ |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:06:39 -0700, "Leif Thorvaldson"
wrote: "Dan Bollinger" wrote in message news:inGke.4913$PS3.3014@attbi_s22... Nonsense! There are all sorts of experiments that can be done on the cheap- it's wood, not nitroglycerine! I agree. The first step is just to identify and test the individual chemical compounds in LDD one at a time and see if one produces the desired results. If not, then begin combining them in pairs. It is so simple, I'm surprised one of the LDD fans haven't tried this already. Dan ====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. Something I heard on the radio about AA seems like it would fit in here- "Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good" While it sure would be nifty to figure out exactly what is occuring by watching things happen under an electron microscope or some other spiffy toy, that shouldn't stop a guy from playing with different formulas and taking notes on the result. As far I understand it, all you should need for an experiment is a couple of test batches, a control group, and some reasonable means of measuring your results. To make it a valid experiment, a person needs to take notes on the processes, and then have someone else (preferably many other people) run the same processes, and determine whether or not the results are repeatable. Now, that doesn't get down to a molecular level, and it won't tell you everything about what is going on- actually, it may tell you very little about the reaction itself, but it should work okay for isolating the active ingredients and determining what concentration for them is needed. For Mac- the reason it's useful to figure some of these things out is so that a guy can make sure it works every time- rather than having a nice piece of work split on you because you used Ivory dish soap rather than Dawn. It lends the method credibility, and leads to a much better experience for those that would prefer to simply use it and not ask why. That doesn't mean *you* have to do it, but it may mean that someone else does and can pass a recipe along. I know I'd much rather keep a kilogram of power in my shop that I can mix with water when it's needed than a giant box of bottles of dish soap! That, and always asking why keeps a guy sharp. So, it might not be as simple as you imply. We got to where we are today because a bunch of people grasping in the dark figured out a way to systematically ask questions. They didn't just invent fancy machines- first they had to figure out just what it was they needed those machines for, and the machines followed of necessity. When you look at the final results, it seems insanely complex, but every complex system is only an set of simple concepts and parts. When I look at a piece of complex machinery, it at first seems like something that is far beyond the reach of most people to understand- it's just too convoluted. But further inspection shows that it's just made of simple machines joined together. I can understand a lever, I can understand a screw- a wheel and axle or an inclined plane are not too tough either. It's not too much of a stretch to figure out how a lever can be used to turn a wheel with a bit of string around the axle, or how that wheel might turn a screw. It's *all* simple stuff, just put together in creative ways by someone who cared. For what it's worth, anyhow. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
The reason that you're not hearing anything from the group is
evident if you do a google on this. Most who have been here more than a couple of years have been down this road so many times that we can find our way in the dark. Nothing conclusive has been found other than the soap:water ratio becomes critical below a certain level. It gets numbing after a time. By all means, go ahead and run the tests, make your own concusions and let us know what you come up with. Dave, I don't need to Google anything. I've been a member of RCT for many years and recall the conversations. But even if I did, all I'd find is more evidence that this potentially valuable technique hasn't improved or been understood in those years. Which is a shame since the size of wood blocks we need for turning bowls cannot be dried in kilns, and even if they could, we might not be able to afford them. The reason nothing conclusive has been found is because no one is looking!!! I don't use LDD. I don't need to run the tests for me. But I can tell you there are many people here who wish someone would! I am encouraging people in the group to invest a little time in understanding this more. Dan |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Bollinger wrote:
Dave, I don't need to Google anything. I've been a member of RCT for many years and recall the conversations. But even if I did, all I'd find is more evidence that this potentially valuable technique hasn't improved or been understood in those years. Which is a shame since the size of wood blocks we need for turning bowls cannot be dried in kilns, and even if they could, we might not be able to afford them. The reason nothing conclusive has been found is because no one is looking!!! I don't use LDD. I don't need to run the tests for me. But I can tell you there are many people here who wish someone would! I am encouraging people in the group to invest a little time in understanding this more. 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. It seems to me that a while back Andi Wolfe and someone else, whose name I should remember, but don't, did look at this in a fairly scientific method (pun intended) and either didn't come up with a good conclusion or else gave up after realizing the amount of work necessary to really run down the answer. 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. OTOH, it won't affect the bucket of the stuff I've been using for several years now. %-) Ya gotta have faith in SOMETHING. 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/ |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Rollie's Dad's method | Metalworking | |||
best method for de-soldering? | Electronics Repair | |||
Delta method good enough to fail entire A/C system? | Home Repair | |||
best hole circle method | Metalworking | |||
finishing method - care to comment? | Woodworking |