On 1/9/2010 9:30 PM, aeroloose wrote:

How about you forgo the wood & SS sheet idea, and think about extruded
aluminum C-channel instead? You can frame your box, have the edges
welded seamlessly, and get a nice plasma or hard anodize finish applied
to the final assembly. These finishes have excellent aesthetics, and
will resist handling / installation abuse well, as they're part of the
surface micro-structure of the metal (vs. external coatings). Overall
weight is reduced, too, so that might be beneficial.

I like aluminum, too - but its thermal conductivity makes it a
non-starter for this application. Wood, on the other hand is a
near-perfect material (for a lot of reasons) - except for the
vulnerability of that portion exposed to weather.

Where it makes sense to use aluminum (for the absorber/heat exchanger
and the trim that protects seals from UV) I already do use aluminum.

Tabs could be added to the inside to attach mountings, glass, solar
panel parts, etc. If you're concerned about heat loss or conduction,
perhaps the inside section of the channel could be sprayed with foam or
other insulator.

One side of the channel would be indoors (in the heated volume) and the
other side of the channel would be outdoors. No matter how much
insulation was fit inside the channel, the channel itself would still
constitute an unacceptable loss mechanism.

Food for thought ... it's not woodworking anymore, of course ....

Construction would be _easier_ if it weren't wood, but the performance
wouldn't even be comparable unless very much more expensive materials
were used.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 1/9/2010 10:28 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Haven't done anything exactly like this, but I'd be concerned that 2 mil
steel covering is going to be susceptible to all sorts of damage from
handling and pre-installation problems. That would leave a channel for
water infiltration that could result in worse long-term damage than exposed
but painted wood. 2 mils is really more tin foil than covering.

That's been a concern for me from the very beginning - and I'm sure that
by now there're truckers who make jokes over coffee about this
over-protective so-and-so in Iowa. To their credit (and my
amazement/admiration) panels have been arriving at destination without
even minor dings or scratches.

I've found sources of stainless foil that offer thicknesses up to 3mm
(which isn't really "foil" to me), so the skin can be made thicker if
that turns out to be necessary, but it really isn't my goal to add any
mechanical toughness - just to improve long-term weather resistance.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 1/9/2010 3:44 PM, whit3rd wrote:

In terms of moisture and fungus attacking the wood, your structure
will need roof-like coverage; that means flashing in addition to
the foil/cement that protects the large flat surface. Stainless
steel will just be a kind of paint, with all the problems of paint
(nicks or cracks will grow into major flaws). Some ventilation
will be required, too, or the protected wood will never have
a chance to air-dry in case of accidental moisture.

Exactly so - during daylight hours there will be some continuous dry
airflow, becoming "huge" airflow during winter months. Over the past 7+
years I haven't seen any problems with painted panels, and expect that
behavior won't worsen with stainless steel "paint".

Instead of looking at just the protect-flat-surface part of the
problem, you need to examine edge and corner and
overlap areas, and apply appropriate flashing there. It doesn't
seem to me this will be easy.

To the extent possible, this is already being done in the panel itself -
and I've made a point of making clear to customers that attention to
structure detail is one of the reasons to have installation performed by
a pro.

If dissimilar metals are nearby, and if they touch the stainless,
you can expect accelerated corrosion of the metal. Copper
and lead roof structures have lasted centuries, so
there's certainly hope for success.

Galvanic action is a concern, and I'm expecting s/s to behave reasonably
well in this regard. Lew has suggested silicon bronze instead of s/s,
and this will be one of the aspects I'll need to investigate further.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 1/9/2010 4:16 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/9/2010 9:14 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Does anyone know of more suitable/better/longer-lasting materials?

Have you looked into any of the vinyl products? Vinyl clad wood seems to
have a pretty good track record.

Most plastics, including vinyl, don't seem to hold up well in the long
term to UV exposure. Primer+paint extends their lifetimes decently, but
makes product longevity a function of maintenance quality - and I'm
attempting to remove that dependence.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris,

When I finally figured out what you wanted to do, my thoughts ran to
residential windows. The Pella folks (also Iowegians) make windows
with wood cores protected by aluminum overlays. I think the aluminum
is brake/roller formed and the wood inserted. They might have some
methods that work, or could at least move you further down the path.

Seems to me if you had an L or U shaped piece of anodized aluminum
sheet that would cover the front and sides of the box, and lap over
the back slightly, you would no longer be at the mercy of glue holding
it in place. You would only have joints at the corners then. If you
needed fastners they could be installed at the back and the front
under the panel. You should be able to get a neutral color that could
be painted to renew. Moisture that got in could get out through the
corners. Or be baked out when the sun hit it.

Anderson does the same thing with a preformed plastic, which seems to
hold up. I know they make plywood with that plastic laminated to it,
but you would still have edges to contend with. It is also spendy...I
bought a piece of trim for a window installation for $20 per sf!!!

I've seen what ocean air and salt spray does to steel, wood and
aluminum, and it isn't pretty. I understand that seaside cottages
have to be repained every couple of years to keep deterioration at
bay. By my observation, galvanized seem to hold up best, it developed
a layer of rust and then quit. Other stuff just kept pitting.

You've set a high bar for yourself.

Old Guy
Can't see my shop for the snow!!!



On Jan 9, 9:14*am, Morris Dovey wrote:
To prevent damage from exposure to the environment (rain, snow, salt,
UV, bugs, etc) I've been thinking about wrapping the outside of some
wooden boxes in stainless steel for some time now.

The rough plan is to apply spray adhesive - something similar to

* *http://www.use-enco.com/CGI/INSRIT?PMAKA=SY505-2691

to the wood and then very carefully apply 0.002" stainless steel foil
similar to this stuff

* *http://www.use-enco.com/CGI/INSRIT?PMAKA=SY326-1520

over the adhesive and use a roller to ensure good contact / smooth surface.

I've never done anything like this before, neither the adhesive nor the
foil is particularly cheap, and the wooden boxes are expensive enough to
make me nervous about screwing up even one full-sized test.

Has anyone tried anything like this (first-hand experience) or know of
someone else who did? Did it work and if not, why not?

Does anyone know of more suitable/better/longer-lasting materials?

Any technique suggestions that might make the job easier or provide
longer-lasting protection?

Thanks!

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
To prevent damage from exposure to the environment (rain, snow, salt,
UV, bugs, etc) I've been thinking about wrapping the outside of some
wooden boxes in stainless steel for some time now.

The rough plan is to apply spray adhesive - something similar to

http://www.use-enco.com/CGI/INSRIT?PMAKA=SY505-2691

to the wood and then very carefully apply 0.002" stainless steel foil
similar to this stuff

http://www.use-enco.com/CGI/INSRIT?PMAKA=SY326-1520

over the adhesive and use a roller to ensure good contact / smooth
surface.
I've never done anything like this before, neither the adhesive nor
the foil is particularly cheap, and the wooden boxes are expensive
enough to make me nervous about screwing up even one full-sized test.

Has anyone tried anything like this (first-hand experience) or know of
someone else who did? Did it work and if not, why not?

Does anyone know of more suitable/better/longer-lasting materials?

Any technique suggestions that might make the job easier or provide
longer-lasting protection?


Make the boxes out of HardiPlank - or another form of concrete.

Another choice would be creosoted planks. You see pier pilings made out of
the stuff that lasts generations.

On 1/10/2010 6:45 AM, Old Guy wrote:

When I finally figured out what you wanted to do, my thoughts ran to
residential windows. The Pella folks (also Iowegians) make windows
with wood cores protected by aluminum overlays. I think the aluminum
is brake/roller formed and the wood inserted. They might have some
methods that work, or could at least move you further down the path.

Yuppers - I have one of their windows directly behind my display, and
I've looked at their stuff (and talked with a few of their people). I
like their products, but I'm trying to go beyond everything they seem to
have done.

Seems to me if you had an L or U shaped piece of anodized aluminum
sheet that would cover the front and sides of the box, and lap over
the back slightly, you would no longer be at the mercy of glue holding
it in place. You would only have joints at the corners then. If you
needed fastners they could be installed at the back and the front
under the panel. You should be able to get a neutral color that could
be painted to renew. Moisture that got in could get out through the
corners. Or be baked out when the sun hit it.

I'd like to avoid the need to form sheet stock - my sense is that the
job can be done with foil, although 0.002" may be a bit on the light side.

Anderson does the same thing with a preformed plastic, which seems to
hold up. I know they make plywood with that plastic laminated to it,
but you would still have edges to contend with. It is also spendy...I
bought a piece of trim for a window installation for $20 per sf!!!

Ouch! I need to avoid spendy - and although plastics can look good, I'm
just not confident that they'll hold up well.

I've seen what ocean air and salt spray does to steel, wood and
aluminum, and it isn't pretty. I understand that seaside cottages
have to be repained every couple of years to keep deterioration at
bay. By my observation, galvanized seem to hold up best, it developed
a layer of rust and then quit. Other stuff just kept pitting.

You've set a high bar for yourself.

I have, but I keep telling myself that if I keep my aim high enough, I'm
less likely to shoot myself in the foot. Actually, I'm just trying to
find a really decent starting point - from which I can make improvements
as I find 'em. At the moment, stainless steel or silicon bronze "paint"
looks like it might make a good starting point.

Can't see my shop for the snow!!!

I have the same problem. This is how I "wait" for spring thaw.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:

Galvanic action is a concern, and I'm expecting s/s to behave
reasonably well in this regard. Lew has suggested silicon bronze
instead of s/s, and this will be one of the aspects I'll need to
investigate further.

Note that there are numerous bronzes in addition to silicon...manganese,
aluminum, phosphorous, lead etc. I'm not suggesting silicon is not good,
merely advising and suggesting research into the characteristics of the
various alloys.

Too bad you can't hot dip galvanize your frames


--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

On 1/10/2010 8:04 AM, dadiOH wrote:

Note that there are numerous bronzes in addition to silicon...manganese,
aluminum, phosphorous, lead etc. I'm not suggesting silicon is not good,
merely advising and suggesting research into the characteristics of the
various alloys.

Good suggestion, and that research is already underway...

Too bad you can't hot dip galvanize your frames

Hmm. Lemme see - first dip in a concentrated copper sulphate solution,
then do a light copper plating (think baby shoes or tree leaves), then
plate gold over the copper - how's that?

(still a bit spendy for a "firnace")

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 1/9/2010 1:11 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:

Fiberglass comes to mind. I have seen fiberglass work well, but it
deteriorates over time. It would need to be refreshed from time to time.

Yup. The problem isn't really much different than house trim. If people
would keep it painted, it'd last for a really long time - the problem is
that they don't. That leaves me with the option of either blaming them
for failures or doing what I can to eliminate the possibility.

I used to work for a solar heating company that made the parabolic heaters
for pools. We thermoformed everything. We got the metal coated mylar in
sheets from the plastic company. We then just heated up the thermoforming
machine and made up the parts. We were interested in its reflective
properties.

Metalized mylar works pretty well when new. The guys I've talked to
about using it in parabolic troughs have been unanimous about not
expecting it to last longer than two or three years. The polycarbonate
mirror I used looks lite it'll do better than that - but since I started
on this effort, I've been looking at mirror-polished s/s foil on a
plywood or Delrin substrate.

Since you need a protective covering, you wouldn't need the reflective
coating. Would something like this work? You could talk to the plastics
company guys. They are very knowledgable. It is easy to make a
thermoforming machine. You like to make things low cost knockoffs of
industrial machines anyway.G You can get plastics that last a million
years. Attaching the protective plastic cover to the wood would be the
tricky part.

I've talked to local plastics distributors and haven't yet received any
encouraging news - and if I can arrive at a good bonding method, I think
a non-corroding meal surface would really be more sellable.

I've given some thought to thermoforming the panels and foam filling the
result, but I'm not very confident that they'd last much longer than
painted wood. Given that, I think I'd prefer to stick with wood.

And also, a spray on material could work as well. I know nothing about this.
I know that somebody suggested the truckliner stuff. Could you go to a
truckliner guy and have him spray the unit?

There's a nearby outfit that manufactures a sprayable roof coating that
they claim is even better - but they didn't think it would last
appreciably longer than primer+housepaint on the panels.

Is there some other kind of material/process that is sprayable? You might
look at heavy duty spraying eqipment and talk to those guys. They may be
able to give you some suggestions as to who talk to.

I probably haven't done enough of this. So far I haven't heard of
anything that seemed worth the cost.

And you can always ask Lew for his epoxy suggestions.

Already done - and I'd guess that if anyone could coax epoxy into doing
the job, it'd be Lew.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 1/10/2010 6:23 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/9/2010 9:30 PM, aeroloose wrote:

How about you forgo the wood & SS sheet idea, and think about extruded
aluminum C-channel instead? You can frame your box, have the edges
welded seamlessly, and get a nice plasma or hard anodize finish applied
to the final assembly. These finishes have excellent aesthetics, and
will resist handling / installation abuse well, as they're part of the
surface micro-structure of the metal (vs. external coatings). Overall
weight is reduced, too, so that might be beneficial.

I like aluminum, too - but its thermal conductivity makes it a
non-starter for this application. Wood, on the other hand is a
near-perfect material (for a lot of reasons) - except for the
vulnerability of that portion exposed to weather.

Where it makes sense to use aluminum (for the absorber/heat exchanger
and the trim that protects seals from UV) I already do use aluminum.

Tabs could be added to the inside to attach mountings, glass, solar
panel parts, etc. If you're concerned about heat loss or conduction,
perhaps the inside section of the channel could be sprayed with foam or
other insulator.

One side of the channel would be indoors (in the heated volume) and the
other side of the channel would be outdoors. No matter how much
insulation was fit inside the channel, the channel itself would still
constitute an unacceptable loss mechanism.

Food for thought ... it's not woodworking anymore, of course ....

Construction would be _easier_ if it weren't wood, but the performance
wouldn't even be comparable unless very much more expensive materials
were used.


OK, one more aluminum idea, then I'll quit ...

To minimize the conductivity issue, how about an aluminum
frame (L channel) that would "clad" the box on two sides?
This should get the aluminum out of the heat-path. You
could add threaded bosses to the underside of the channel,
counter-bore the wood frame, and through-bolt the aluminum
frame to the wood frame with plastic bolts.

This also avoids the lamination issues others have noted, as
there isn't a need for a bonding mechanism between the wood
/ cladding anymore.

Aero

On 1/10/2010 9:04 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/9/2010 1:11 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:

Fiberglass comes to mind. I have seen fiberglass work well, but it
deteriorates over time. It would need to be refreshed from time to time.

Yup. The problem isn't really much different than house trim. If people
would keep it painted, it'd last for a really long time - the problem is
that they don't. That leaves me with the option of either blaming them
for failures or doing what I can to eliminate the possibility.

And that's exactly what good builders look for, as you are, materials
that obviate that necessity. In the case of house trim, I use Hardi type
products exclusively.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 1/9/2010 10:35 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/9/2010 9:56 AM, Robatoy wrote:

How big are these boxes, Morris? (Psssst.. I have done a little
laminating in my day.) What kind of wood? Shape?

Two sizes: 48" x 72" x 8" and 96" x 72" x 8". I only need the s/s around
the four 8" sides of the box.

I'm still experimenting with wood types, and my material choices open up
dramatically if I can ensure that the material is completely shielded
from the elements.

Anticipating your next post, these /will/ be perched in the sun - but
shouldn't be subjected to temperatures higher than about 150°F/65°C or
lower than about -40°F/C.

Not enough info available for anything more than a guess, but it seems
like boxes of that size could easily be made of something like exterior
"aquapanel" instead of wood.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 1/10/2010 9:10 AM, aeroloose wrote:

OK, one more aluminum idea, then I'll quit ...

Serious response to lighthearted comment: Solar heating technology has
advanced to the point where a conventionally-built structure can be
(_has_ _been_) 100% solar heated through several winters in an area
where this morning's temperature was below 0°F. Ten years ago, not even
I believed it could be done - and even (especially?) I know it can be
done better still - hence this discussion.

Leaving aside all AGW possibilities (because I have no first hand
knowledge of the subject) and all political crappola, there are obvious
real and significant financial and social benefits to be had from a
technology that keeps people warm and comfortable without the need for
them to pay and pay and pay.

Please don't quit. :-|

To minimize the conductivity issue, how about an aluminum frame (L
channel) that would "clad" the box on two sides? This should get the
aluminum out of the heat-path. You could add threaded bosses to the
underside of the channel, counter-bore the wood frame, and through-bolt
the aluminum frame to the wood frame with plastic bolts.

You're not actually all that far from the current design - except that
the L doesn't extend all the way from the outermost edge to the
structure surface. It's actually a 1/8 x 3/4 x 3/4 aluminum angle - used
to secure the glazing, shield the glazing-to-box sealant from UV, and
hide the glazing's edge.

If that angle were extended inward past the structure skin, there would
be a problem with removing the glazing for cleanout, and with replacing
the glazing in the (unlikely) event of damage. I think a two-part
solution is appropriate, so I'm after just the flat side portion that
can extend from under the angle to a point inside the structure wall.

As suggested, any of a number of materials might be used for that
protective extension, and even though aluminum is easy to work, I have
reservations about its longevity.

This also avoids the lamination issues others have noted, as there isn't
a need for a bonding mechanism between the wood / cladding anymore.

Thus far I've carefully avoided any through penetration of the walls.
I'll need to think about this a bit. Much will depend on the reliability
and durability of available adhesives.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 1/10/10 12:58 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/10/2010 9:10 AM, aeroloose wrote:

OK, one more aluminum idea, then I'll quit ...

Serious response to lighthearted comment: Solar heating technology has
advanced to the point where a conventionally-built structure can be
(_has_ _been_) 100% solar heated through several winters in an area
where this morning's temperature was below 0°F. Ten years ago, not even
I believed it could be done - and even (especially?) I know it can be
done better still - hence this discussion.

Leaving aside all AGW possibilities (because I have no first hand
knowledge of the subject) and all political crappola, there are obvious
real and significant financial and social benefits to be had from a
technology that keeps people warm and comfortable without the need for
them to pay and pay and pay.

Please don't quit. :-|

To minimize the conductivity issue, how about an aluminum frame (L
channel) that would "clad" the box on two sides? This should get the
aluminum out of the heat-path. You could add threaded bosses to the
underside of the channel, counter-bore the wood frame, and through-bolt
the aluminum frame to the wood frame with plastic bolts.

You're not actually all that far from the current design - except that
the L doesn't extend all the way from the outermost edge to the
structure surface. It's actually a 1/8 x 3/4 x 3/4 aluminum angle - used
to secure the glazing, shield the glazing-to-box sealant from UV, and
hide the glazing's edge.

If that angle were extended inward past the structure skin, there would
be a problem with removing the glazing for cleanout, and with replacing
the glazing in the (unlikely) event of damage. I think a two-part
solution is appropriate, so I'm after just the flat side portion that
can extend from under the angle to a point inside the structure wall.

As suggested, any of a number of materials might be used for that
protective extension, and even though aluminum is easy to work, I have
reservations about its longevity.

This also avoids the lamination issues others have noted, as there isn't
a need for a bonding mechanism between the wood / cladding anymore.

Thus far I've carefully avoided any through penetration of the walls.
I'll need to think about this a bit. Much will depend on the reliability
and durability of available adhesives.

Ok, I'll bite.

Aluminum exterior door threshold, often has a rubber/vinyl/silicone (or
some other unknown to me at least) seal inserted into a bead in it.
Imbed that in the house, and overlap your angle piece over the seal.
You could probably get it extruded in eight foot lengths with the right
supplier.

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

"Morris Dovey" wrote:
I'll need to think about this a bit. Much will depend on the
reliability and durability of available adhesives.

Talk to SikaFlex tech service in metro Detroit, great guys and they
have an 800#.

Lew

Morris, this would seem to be a natural place to use one of the
artificial lumbers -
Azek, etc. Here is a list of manufacturers:
http://www.deckspecialists.com/compo...kmaterials.htm

--
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)




"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 1/9/2010 11:44 AM, dadiOH wrote:

You didn't say what kind of wood, what the boxes are for or how
important
appearance is. I'm assuming plywood since laminating anything
to solid wood
is iffy.

Plywood and manufactured sheet goods are a possibility - but
right now I'm working with SYP and poplar. If I can completely
prevent moisture from getting at the wood, then my materials
choices widen substantially.

The boxes, of course, are solar heating panels. The front is
glazed and the back will be out of view (inside a south wall).
The interior of the box will be exposed to warm air at the same
moisture level as the inside of the structure - which isn't much
of a concern. What I want to do is protect that portion of the
box edges that are exposed to the outdoors.

Appearance is important. I'd like 'em to look smooth, clean, and
simple. Paintable would be very nice, but probably isn't an
absolute requirement.

Currently I apply a wipe-on coat of poly, sand lightly with
#400, and brush on a coat of white primer. The customer then
applies a color coat of their choosing - but beyond that point
longevity depends entirely on the customer keeping the exposed
portion of the box painted, and I want to remove that
dependency.

If appearance isn't terribly important - and if it were me -
I'd laminate
the ply with fiberglass and polyester (not epoxy) resin, then
paint it.
I've never done that where it snows but have many times in the
tropics...lots of sun, heat, salt from the ocean. It works
well, had stuff
like that for 20+ years.

Twenty years isn't long enough. I'd settle for 50 years, but a
century would be way more than twice as good. I'm determined to
make these things to outlast the customer's grandchildren if I
can.

The potential problem with *any* lamination is
DElamination...once water
gets between the two surfaces rot starts quickly. And how
about the inside
of the boxes? At the very least, any laminate should be
continuous over the
wood edges.

I'm not worried about the inside of the boxes at all - they tend
to be self-regulating and have good airflow.

I am concerned about the adhesive deteriorating over time
(that's one of the reasons I'm looking for advice here). One of
the box's design points is that all glue and sealant areas are
already shielded from UV, and now I'm wanting to provide 100%
protection for the exposed (exterior) wood.

One of the things I like about the foil approach is that I can
fold it over the front edge of the box side so that the front
edge of the box is covered. I'm planning to use a closed-cell
foam weather stripping between that edge and the glazing, and a
1/8" aluminum trim angle over the edge of the glazing to protect
the weather stripping from UV and to dress up the edge. By doing
that, I should be able to prevent moisture entry and make the
glazing removable (it's not now) to allow cleaning when needed.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Naval Bronze. I have some port holes that were under salt water
for 50 years or so. Nice dark patina.

Silicon Bronze is a nice gold color and is good. Have a note pad
holder on my desk made from it.

Martin

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"LDosser" wrote:

I'm not sure stainless holds up all that well in salty applications.
I've seen supposedly stainless measuring cups pit when I use them
for sal****er aquarium water preparation. Brass might hold up better
in a salty environment, but I don't have a clue about that.

Brass in salt water is strictly a loser, the zinc leaches out leaving
a structure that will crumble in your hand.

Stainless Steel is no winner either.

"stain" and "less" are the operative words.

18-8, of which is what most cooking utensils are made, will pit right
in front of you, if left to continuous exposure of salt warter.

316L, about a 35% price premium, will last a little longer, but
silicon bronze is your best shot.

Lew

On 1/10/2010 12:58 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/10/2010 9:10 AM, aeroloose wrote:

OK, one more aluminum idea, then I'll quit ...

Serious response to lighthearted comment: Solar heating technology has
advanced to the point where a conventionally-built structure can be
(_has_ _been_) 100% solar heated through several winters in an area
where this morning's temperature was below 0°F. Ten years ago, not even
I believed it could be done - and even (especially?) I know it can be
done better still - hence this discussion.

Leaving aside all AGW possibilities (because I have no first hand
knowledge of the subject) and all political crappola, there are obvious
real and significant financial and social benefits to be had from a
technology that keeps people warm and comfortable without the need for
them to pay and pay and pay.

Please don't quit. :-|


Appreciate the encouragement ... sometimes it's hard to
judge how folks will respond in newsgroups these days ...
it's a risk when you're not a regular.

To minimize the conductivity issue, how about an aluminum frame (L
channel) that would "clad" the box on two sides? This should get the
aluminum out of the heat-path. You could add threaded bosses to the
underside of the channel, counter-bore the wood frame, and through-bolt
the aluminum frame to the wood frame with plastic bolts.

You're not actually all that far from the current design - except that
the L doesn't extend all the way from the outermost edge to the
structure surface. It's actually a 1/8 x 3/4 x 3/4 aluminum angle - used
to secure the glazing, shield the glazing-to-box sealant from UV, and
hide the glazing's edge.

If that angle were extended inward past the structure skin, there would
be a problem with removing the glazing for cleanout, and with replacing
the glazing in the (unlikely) event of damage. I think a two-part
solution is appropriate, so I'm after just the flat side portion that
can extend from under the angle to a point inside the structure wall.

So now I'm like a dog with a bone . How about we keep the
idea of the cladding on all four walls, let the cladding
extend across the top to the edge (holding the glazing in
place), and let it get enclosed in the supporting structure
at the bottom of the box (non-removable). BUT, we leave one
upper edge in the angle format (the angle you have now) so
that edge could be removed and the glazing slid out (think a
poster frame with one edge removed). Add some gasket design
work, and you might avoid caulking & adhesives there, too.

As suggested, any of a number of materials might be used for that
protective extension, and even though aluminum is easy to work, I have
reservations about its longevity.

I think the plasma or HCA treatments will address that
concern pretty well (ref. General Magnaplate, Duralectra).
Plus, they have lots of colors ...


This also avoids the lamination issues others have noted, as there isn't
a need for a bonding mechanism between the wood / cladding anymore.

Thus far I've carefully avoided any through penetration of the walls.
I'll need to think about this a bit. Much will depend on the reliability
and durability of available adhesives.

.... and a final thought to eliminate the penetrations. Keep
the cladding full-length as above, but add tabs at the lower
edge to bend over the wood frame and fasten the cladding in
place (beating the poster frame analogy to death, think of
those bend-down tabs that hold the cardboard backing in
place). Then put a fastener through the tab to lock it. I
think the heat-loss here would be small, and could be
further reduced with an insulating layer along the tabbed edge.

Aero

On Jan 9, 10:14*am, Morris Dovey wrote:
To prevent damage from exposure to the environment (rain, snow, salt,
UV, bugs, etc) I've been thinking about wrapping the outside of some
wooden boxes in stainless steel for some time now.

The rough plan is to apply spray adhesive - something similar to

* *http://www.use-enco.com/CGI/INSRIT?PMAKA=SY505-2691

to the wood and then very carefully apply 0.002" stainless steel foil
similar to this stuff

* *http://www.use-enco.com/CGI/INSRIT?PMAKA=SY326-1520

over the adhesive and use a roller to ensure good contact / smooth surface.

I've never done anything like this before, neither the adhesive nor the
foil is particularly cheap, and the wooden boxes are expensive enough to
make me nervous about screwing up even one full-sized test.

Has anyone tried anything like this (first-hand experience) or know of
someone else who did? Did it work and if not, why not?

Needed a quick and easy reflective surface for a plywood
lamp enclosure. Used foil duct tape, worked beautifully.
Burnished it smooth with a paint paddle wrapped in cloth
to prevent scratching. Only prob is slight blistering from
heat, more cosmetic than disastrous. The tape would
probably have adhered better if I primed the plywood with
shellac or similar gloss finish.

Does anyone know of more suitable/better/longer-lasting materials?

Any technique suggestions that might make the job easier or provide
longer-lasting protection?

Thicker gauge metal, riveted to the ply.

On 1/9/2010 9:14 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

To prevent damage from exposure to the environment (rain, snow, salt,
UV, bugs, etc) I've been thinking about wrapping the outside of some
wooden boxes in stainless steel for some time now.

I received a lot of good suggestions on this covering alternative box
construction materials, alternative metal choices, and adhesives.

The alternatives to wood didn't strike me as a good idea because of
their lack of stability when subjected to heat. I liked the idea, but
for now I think I'll stick with wood.

I received multiple adhesive suggestions, and so I think I may try all
of the most attractive. I did rule out the aerosol and brush in favor of
roller application in order to produce a thin, uniform coating.

Silicon bronze seemed like it might be a good idea until I tried to find
suppliers of the stuff in foil form. As a general rule, I avoid
single-source products - but I couldn't identify even a single source.
I've just ordered a 20"x100' roll of the 0.002" stainless steel, and
I'll see how well that works.

Actually, I guess it'd /better/ work out - my two most recent sales
prospects liked the "full metal jacket" idea so well they ordered
without even /seeing/ the final product!

Thanks to all who posted and e-mailed suggestions!

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 1/26/2010 1:43 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

I've just ordered a 20"x100' roll of the 0.002" stainless steel, and
I'll see how well that works.

Well, the stainless arrived and it isn't much like I'd expected...

I ordered Type 321, which is a stainless/titanium alloy good for
temperatures to 1800°F. I'd expected something pretty much like kitchen
aluminum foil, and this stuff is more like armor plate! I don't think
wrinkles are going to be a problem, and even at only 0.002" it feels
almost structural.

Woodpeckers beware!

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:

On 1/26/2010 1:43 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

I've just ordered a 20"x100' roll of the 0.002" stainless steel, and
I'll see how well that works.

Well, the stainless arrived and it isn't much like I'd expected...

I ordered Type 321, which is a stainless/titanium alloy good for
temperatures to 1800°F. I'd expected something pretty much like kitchen
aluminum foil, and this stuff is more like armor plate! I don't think
wrinkles are going to be a problem, and even at only 0.002" it feels
almost structural.

Woodpeckers beware!


Where did you get it? If it's that strong, I think you may be onto
something with that woodpecker comment. My storage shed may just get a coat
of armor. :-) At least some strategic locations on it.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On 1/29/2010 10:19 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Where did you get it? If it's that strong, I think you may be onto
something with that woodpecker comment. My storage shed may just get a coat
of armor. :-) At least some strategic locations on it.

Here's the page I ordered from:

http://www.use-enco.com/CGI/INSRIT?PMAKA=SY326-1520

If you'd like a small (very small!) piece to check out, e-mail me your
address and I'll send it off.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 1/29/2010 10:19 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Where did you get it? If it's that strong, I think you may be onto
something with that woodpecker comment. My storage shed may just get a
coat
of armor. :-) At least some strategic locations on it.

Here's the page I ordered from:

http://www.use-enco.com/CGI/INSRIT?PMAKA=SY326-1520

If you'd like a small (very small!) piece to check out, e-mail me your
address and I'll send it off.

So how many of these very small pieces are you distributing before you don't
have enough left for your project? ;~)

John

On 1/30/2010 7:55 AM, John Grossbohlin wrote:

So how many of these very small pieces are you distributing before you
don't have enough left for your project? ;~)

I only offered one - but if anyone else wants a business card size
sample they're invited to snail-mail a SASE with a (US) dollar bill
tucked inside.

I have almost twice as much of the foil as I need to produce the solar
panels now in the production queue, so I don't /think/ I'm creating a
problem for myself...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:20:38 -0600, Morris Dovey
wrote:

On 1/26/2010 1:43 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

I've just ordered a 20"x100' roll of the 0.002" stainless steel, and
I'll see how well that works.

Well, the stainless arrived and it isn't much like I'd expected...

I ordered Type 321, which is a stainless/titanium alloy good for
temperatures to 1800°F. I'd expected something pretty much like kitchen
aluminum foil, and this stuff is more like armor plate! I don't think
wrinkles are going to be a problem, and even at only 0.002" it feels
almost structural.

Woodpeckers beware!

Beware of chromed tools and titanium do not play well together. When I
was in the Air Force, they shipped out all our tool kits to have the
chrome removed before the F-16s or F-15s arrived.

Mark

Markem wrote:
....

Beware of chromed tools and titanium do not play well together. ...

In what way?

--

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:58:23 -0600, dpb wrote:

Markem wrote:
...

Beware of chromed tools and titanium do not play well together. ...

In what way?

Degraded the titanium is what we peons on the flight line were told.
Maybe aircraft grade problem, do not know, ya do as told generally in
the military.

Mark

On Jan 30, 1:30*pm, Markem wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:58:23 -0600, dpb wrote:
Markem wrote:
...

Beware of chromed tools and titanium do not play well together. ...

In what way?

Degraded the titanium is what we peons on the flight line were told.
Maybe aircraft grade problem, do not know, ya do as told generally in
the military.

Mark

Most peculiar, momma.... This has piqued my interest.
I had heard of that before... a guy at Orenda who was rebuilding a 7
MW CTU for me was talking about that.

"Markem" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:58:23 -0600, dpb wrote:

Markem wrote:
...

Beware of chromed tools and titanium do not play well together. ...

In what way?

Degraded the titanium is what we peons on the flight line were told.
Maybe aircraft grade problem, do not know, ya do as told generally in
the military.


I'm wondering if anybody really knows (and whether it really makes any
difference). Some years ago, I was working in a shop that was making a laser
for the military, the body of which was titanium. We were not to allow any
steel to come in contact with the titanium. All cutters were carbide, vise
jaws made from aluminum, deburr files were diamond and the parts were not
even set on a steel worktable. They claimed degradation of the titanium. I
have machined lots of titanium for commercial aircraft and no such
precautions were taken (or specified by the buyer). I wonder what the
military knows that Boeing doesn't. Hard to believe it's much.

Markem wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:58:23 -0600, dpb wrote:

Markem wrote:
...

Beware of chromed tools and titanium do not play well together. ...
In what way?

Degraded the titanium is what we peons on the flight line were told.

Interesting -- a (very) quick google uncovered nothing interesting in
that regard; generally both are pretty much considered relatively immune
to trouble hence the question/wondering...

Maybe aircraft grade problem, do not know, ya do as told generally in
the military.

Youza' on that 'un fur shure...

--

Morris Dovey writes:
On 1/30/2010 7:55 AM, John Grossbohlin wrote:

So how many of these very small pieces are you distributing before you
don't have enough left for your project? ;~)

I only offered one - but if anyone else wants a business card size
sample they're invited to snail-mail a SASE with a (US) dollar bill
tucked inside.

I have almost twice as much of the foil as I need to produce the solar
panels now in the production queue, so I don't /think/ I'm creating a
problem for myself...


And you can recoup your cost by just selling just 9 linear feet of the foil
at 2"x4" for USD1 :-)

scott

On 1/30/2010 3:16 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Morris writes:
On 1/30/2010 7:55 AM, John Grossbohlin wrote:

So how many of these very small pieces are you distributing before you
don't have enough left for your project? ;~)

I only offered one - but if anyone else wants a business card size
sample they're invited to snail-mail a SASE with a (US) dollar bill
tucked inside.

I have almost twice as much of the foil as I need to produce the solar
panels now in the production queue, so I don't /think/ I'm creating a
problem for myself...


And you can recoup your cost by just selling just 9 linear feet of the foil
at 2"x4" for USD1 :-)

I hadn't done any arithmetic - I just figured that the hassle factor of
sending off a SASE plus "not free" would hold the amount of cutting to a
minimum.

I suspect I might use up more than one pair of scissors if I needed to
cut 9' of this stuff into small pieces...

....and it'll probably horrify the metalheads to hear that I plan to
bandsaw the roll into thirds as the first step. :-

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:10:49 -0800, "CW"
wrote:


"Markem" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:58:23 -0600, dpb wrote:

Markem wrote:
...

Beware of chromed tools and titanium do not play well together. ...

In what way?

Degraded the titanium is what we peons on the flight line were told.
Maybe aircraft grade problem, do not know, ya do as told generally in
the military.


I'm wondering if anybody really knows (and whether it really makes any
difference). Some years ago, I was working in a shop that was making a laser
for the military, the body of which was titanium. We were not to allow any
steel to come in contact with the titanium. All cutters were carbide, vise
jaws made from aluminum, deburr files were diamond and the parts were not
even set on a steel worktable. They claimed degradation of the titanium. I
have machined lots of titanium for commercial aircraft and no such
precautions were taken (or specified by the buyer). I wonder what the
military knows that Boeing doesn't. Hard to believe it's much.

Well in the land of $600 hammers and really expensive toilets who
really knows.

Mark

Keep us posted!
Martin

Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/26/2010 1:43 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

I've just ordered a 20"x100' roll of the 0.002" stainless steel, and
I'll see how well that works.

Well, the stainless arrived and it isn't much like I'd expected...

I ordered Type 321, which is a stainless/titanium alloy good for
temperatures to 1800°F. I'd expected something pretty much like kitchen
aluminum foil, and this stuff is more like armor plate! I don't think
wrinkles are going to be a problem, and even at only 0.002" it feels
almost structural.

Woodpeckers beware!

How will you cut it - cnc plasma or shear ?
Laser ?
Martin

Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/30/2010 7:55 AM, John Grossbohlin wrote:

So how many of these very small pieces are you distributing before you
don't have enough left for your project? ;~)

I only offered one - but if anyone else wants a business card size
sample they're invited to snail-mail a SASE with a (US) dollar bill
tucked inside.

I have almost twice as much of the foil as I need to produce the solar
panels now in the production queue, so I don't /think/ I'm creating a
problem for myself...

On 1/30/2010 9:42 PM, Martin H. Eastburn wrote:

How will you cut it - cnc plasma or shear ?

Horizontal bandsaw to cut the (wrapped in tape) 20" roll into thirds,
then I'll going to try cutting those strips to length with shop
scissors. If that doesn't work, I'll use aircraft snips.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Remember tiny iron flecks might just cause a problem if loose.
If it touches Al, it might burn in oxygen rich or chemically contaminate
something else. Iron is death in a fab line. You would not believe
the issues and isolations needed for ferro-mag IC's and the like.

Remember MIL spec is under NASA and Commercial and user specs are beneath
those of MIL.

Martin

CW wrote:

"Markem" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:58:23 -0600, dpb wrote:

Markem wrote:
...

Beware of chromed tools and titanium do not play well together. ...

In what way?

Degraded the titanium is what we peons on the flight line were told.
Maybe aircraft grade problem, do not know, ya do as told generally in
the military.


I'm wondering if anybody really knows (and whether it really makes any
difference). Some years ago, I was working in a shop that was making a
laser for the military, the body of which was titanium. We were not to
allow any steel to come in contact with the titanium. All cutters were
carbide, vise jaws made from aluminum, deburr files were diamond and the
parts were not even set on a steel worktable. They claimed degradation
of the titanium. I have machined lots of titanium for commercial
aircraft and no such precautions were taken (or specified by the buyer).
I wonder what the military knows that Boeing doesn't. Hard to believe
it's much.

On 1/30/2010 9:38 PM, Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
Keep us posted!

Ok - I probably won't do anything with this stuff for another two
months, but I'll report back on how it goes.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/