Ping: LEIF - - re: LDD

Answers are interspersed below:

====>Hi! I have only used LDD on yew, but no other softwoods. I figured Ron's use of Norfolk Pine Yew amply proved that LDD would work on them.

=====>Interesting. I tried applying LDD to various pieces/types of wood and noticed no staining. Since it is believed that LDD penetrates only a cell or two deep, turning and sanding should remove it as well as any perceived stain. As soon as you have done that, apply the finish coat immediately. More on that below!

=====>Yes on the LDD ratio. Otherwise, fine but not necessary if you plan to turn the green blank immediately. If not, then immediately immerse in LDD and basically, keep it in the solution until you are ready to finish the piece off.

====> I have had some success with that until I tried madrona. That stuff cracks and warps if you even look at it! From that unsuccessful moment, I have applied the rule of always keeping it in the solution until you are ready to turn it and sand to finishing -- applying whatever finish immediately.

=====>Yes, but with the caveat stated above about immediately putting on the finish coat or sealer.

=====>Before or after the sealer? The wet sanding should have been done in effect after the finish turning. There will very likely be LDD still in the wood at this point, which you will note, cakes on your sandpaper but can be cleaned to a degree by slapping the sandpaper on the ways. Mineral oil is a miscible oil and should mix with any water or LDD. Did you wipe the turning off of excess moisture/oil? I haven't done wet turning with mineral oil until my sealer coat is on.

====>Speculation here, but think the wood is heavier as water is still in the wood. The object with LDD is to keep evaporation down (thereby, cracking and warping) while working the wood. The object to applying the finish is also to slow down evaporation and retard cracking and warping. This will occur over a period of time, my bowls have become increasingly lighter as the evaporative process continues over months and years. All finishes allow migration of water vapor. Some slower than others. Don't know about the heavy plastic ones which may effectively seal the wood to prevent that compared to lacquers, shellacs, oils, waxes, etc.

Mac:

I see Leif has answered, but my pers> Ok, tried it on 3 bowls this weekend, after reading your post and studying Ron

I use it almost exclusively on softwoods, norfolk pine is my favorite.

I don't notice any tinting of the wood when done...

I rough turn as wet as possible, depending upon the wood. For clear wood, right away after cutting, if not, let it spalt some, then cut it (the water percentage will usually be a little lower after spalting). Either way, there is water flying around during the early part of turning, at least. I don't use LDD until I'm done with the rough turning. If I need a break (hours or days) I just cover the bowl blank with a plastic bag, sealing it up with spring clamps. I use faceplates for rough turning, then turn a foot for a chuck for my sanding process. Yep, the faceplates do rust a bit if I wait too long to get back to them, but not enough to be a problem... I've never lost a bowl because I stopped turning part way through, though sometimes, the spalting has changed (continued) while the blank was bagged...

I use a mix of 4 parts water to one part LDD, and have about 30 gallons of solution in a big plastic barrel (vat). To this, I add a half gallon of isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol. The alcohol mostly keeps things from growing in the LDD vat. Some other fellows think it may help the penetration, but I haven't run definitive tests yet to really find out.

The rough turned wood goes in the LDD vat for a few days to a week or so, depending upon how much I'm turning. If I'm turning a lot, then I push the oldest piece out in about three or four days. If I'm turning less, I'll let them soak for a week (or until I remember they are in the vat).

After removal from the LDD vat, I put them on a rack and let them dry. Mostly "upside down" so they drain. After a few days, I'll flip them upright and leave them that way until Dry... This means anywhere from a few weeks to months, depending upon how thick the rough turning was. If there is any significant moisture in the rough turned bowl, I wait before sanding.

Once they've dried, I sand. If I didn't do such a great job with the roughing, I tend to drag out the "50 grit gouge" (I can go down to 24 grit in an emergency) to finish shaping and such before proceeding with sanding. (I've taken a 5/8" thick bowl down to 1/8" in little time, and don't have to worry about chatter or blowing it up with a catch in the "final shaping" phase. Sanding is done with the bowl mounted in a chuck and using power sanders (Sioux/Milwaukee angle drills and PS or Hook and Loop paper on appropriate pads.) All sanding is done dry. The residual LDD makes for easy sanding, the paper doesn't have any build up, but you have to wear a mask because you can get some really fine dust in the air (and it does tend to taste like soap, DAMHIKT). I typically sand to 600 grit, alternating the spin direction of the lathe with each grit change along the way. On that really special object I might go to 1200/1500, but it's a rare day I do something like that.

Once sanded, the bowl is cut off of the chuck, the bottom finish sanded, then it goes into the "soup" which is a modified vat of danish oil until the bowl saturates. (about 20 gallons of it) At first, the bowl floats, and needs to be held down, but after awhile, it no longer floats. The process can vary from a week to two or more, depending upon thickness before the object saturates. Here's where you can really tell if it had any residual moisture, because you can see the difference. After saturation, a dip and dry, buff and repeat process builds up a surface film that helps protect the resultant object. A coat of wax and the bowl is off to a gallery.

If it's heavier, it's still probably wet, and no matter what finish you put on it, it will eventually look bad... (once the water eventually gets out it will make the finish dull, at the very least).

I think Leif mentioned he thought that the LDD is only one cell deep, but I can tell you it's a lot deeper than that, because as I sand, I get soapy sawdust all the way down to where I stop. Perhaps if you are only in the LDD vat for a few hours, it may only go one deep, but that's not why I use LDD in the first place.

Good Luck!

-_Rick

ok.. since Ron turns things paper thin, I had assumed (make an ass out of u & me) that it was a pretty hard species of pine...

Again, might have been the soft pine and fir, but I rough turned the walls about

3.8" and had to go down to VERY thin, maybe 3/16, to get all the color off.. interesting experience, as I have no experience turning thin stuff.. real pucker factor involved.. *g*

yeah... it's the way I've done several bowls lately... sand to almost done, then coat with Mineral Oil and let it soak in... wipe it off and wet sand with 400 grit until most of the surface oil is sanded off, then another coat of oil.. buff the oil the next day and then wax if desired.. Learned the process here:

> Stained and waxed the other 2, they seemed to be very nice, but all three >> still>> felt slightly heavier than they would/wood have if dried "naturally... >> maybe>> because it was soft wood???>

thanks, Leif.... I may not know what I'm doing, but I'm having fun experimenting.... even the medium thickness bowls have a wonderful translucent look that seems to have something to do with the LDD..

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

thanks, Rick.. my process is pretty much the same, except that I usually get lazy and use the chuck screw instead of the face plate... All this wood is fresh cut and VERY wet... After turning a bowl, my arms, shirt and a lot of the lathe space are soaked.. lol

that's really good to know, as so far I've stuck to the 50/50 mixture... 3 or 4 parts to one would make it easier to deal with...

I'd love the luxury of reversing the lathe, but don't have that option... I end up hand sanding some stuff because the grain and bowl rotation don't match well.. *sigh*

ok... that's a big question... should the bowl dry longer than I've been doing? I think that I've misunderstood the process, as your method, drying them for weeks.... makes sense as long as they don't crack..

I was thinking that once they came out of the LDD, they had to be finish turned and sealed ASAP..

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Rick has some interesting techniques, some of which are contrary to my experience; however, the old adage applies. Whatever works, works! One note about leaving the stuff to dry: I found it too risky and that coupled with my natural impatience to finish a project, wanted to get it done and not have a bunch of things sitting around drying. After all, that is what lead to my search and finding out about LDD from Ron Kent. Rick's drying method may well fit in more with a professional/production turner. I tend to work at one thing at a time.

The ratio of LDD, seems problematic. If Rick's ratio works for him, great. The thing that I hang my hat on is that I have the same LDD in a "vat" that I started with, and with the addition of a quart or two of LDD once a year, really doesn't cost any more except for the initial investment ($15.00???). Perhaps more has to be added when you are processing more wood, as the water from the wood will thin the solution. I kept a check on it with a hydrometer for about a year and found out that adding a quart or so of LDD kept the Specific Gravity of the 50/50 solution at the recommended ratio.

In any event, I am gratified to hear about the experience of turners with LDD. I don't know how many emails of guidance and copies of the "Treatise" I have sent out due to computer problems, but I hadn't gotten many comments back on the efficacy of the process for others. Thanks guys, for your input! May the Spirit of LDD Protect you from cracks and warps! *G*

Leif

($15.00???).

Why should the ratio seem problematic? If the bush burns but is not consumed, why should the number of branches affect the light?

If there were some sort of chemical reaction, of course, conventional chemistry would demand replacement of reagent.

If there were a physical replacement, what did the replacement would have to be regularly replenished.

Rick, how is the Danish oil modified and what are the added properties? Whatever the other improvements, it likely doesn't gel. That could get expensive.

Final shaping by sanding is a technique that's not often mentioned here. At least it's new to me as is reducing wall thickness from 5/8in. to

1/8in. with a coarse grit 'gouge'. Is this something that you found that you _could do_ or is it a technique that you actually use and consider worthwhile to advocate for all of us?

Turn to Safety, Arch Fortiter

George: Here's my; answer to your questions based on vaguely recalled chemistry classes in alchemical times. Perhaps newer, better, more correct answers are available from one of the members of the rec. *G*

=====>By problematic, I meant that people use differing ratios of LDD to water. Some have reported that theirs didn't work and blamed it on too thin a solution. Perhaps Rick is exercising some thaumaturgical abilities on the wood. Perhaps involving zen-like incantations?

======>LDD is hydrophilic, has a higher molar weight and in the course of drawing out the water through the membrane of cell walls, it thins the LDD solution. I guess that could be called a chemical reaction? Therefore, the more wood one soaks in LDD solution, the thinner the solution gets. Ergo, the drop in specific gravity and the need to occasionally add more LDD to the solution. Rick didn't make any mention of adding more LDD to his 4:1 ratio of solution over time and I would be interested to hear what he does or doesn't do in this regard. If the solution is so thinned out as to approach the same molar weight of water in the cells, no water will be extracted and the solution will essentially be water.

=====>Don't understand the question. Perhaps you could rephrase it?

Leif

fyi: Since there is no exchange of energy (exothermic or endothermic) and since the chemicals remain unchanged, no chemical reaction goes on. What's happening is a physical phenomenon. Not unlike how a wick or siphon works. Dan

So that explains why the lead wasn't turned into gold! Drat! *G*

Leif

Double Drat! I should have said, "What I think is going on... since we don't yet know the LDD mystery." Dan

Leif:

I agree with your sentiments on most items, and we can all learn something from what works or doesn't work for someone else. It is important for people to realize that the primary reason I use LDD is to make sanding easier, not to keep the cracking and checking down. With Norfolk Pine, anyway, there isn't as much problem with cracking as with other woods. In addition, even with some problematic woods, different techniques will allow making a bowl without losing it to shrinkage cracks. (For example, an end grain bowl of Macadamia Nut wood is a beautiful thing, but it is a rare day you get one done without it splitting from the edge to the center. On the other hand, wood from the same stump, turned side grain can make a really nice natural edge bowl without nary a problem...)

I haven't gone to the trouble of using a hydrometer to check the specific gravity of the LDD vat, but do add more (and/or water) as it "feels right" for my application. If I had the time, I'd do a more scientific study of several woods that are commonly available here to see if they responded to higher concentrations of LDD to water, but as I don't turn them as often, I just haven't taken the time. Perhaps when I get my new workshop built, I'll (temporarily, at least) have enough space to do something like that.

As you have indicated, we each need to determine what works for us, and that also means experimentation. Without that, we wouldn't even be using LDD in any concentration, or for any reasons except trying to get the dirt off our hands. I comment everyone for wanting to learn more about what others do, and think healthy discussions like these help us all. I don't think I'll be doing any "high concentration" LDD for the near future at least, or primarily for crack abatement, but that could change in an instant if a need arose.

We all need to do what makes sense for us. Here in Hawaii, there are several people that are playing with or using versions of the LDD process (I think Ron Kent is on Oahu. I'm on Hawaii, the big island). Quite a few on this island are using a variation of modified Danish oil for Norfolk Pine (and some other woods), and the incredible amount of sharing going on here has helped us all. I know I wouldn't be using the process if it hadn't been shared by someone else first.

Thanks you for carrying the LDD cross, so to speak, so others can also learn what works for you, and for listening to what others have said. It only helps us all in the end.

Thanks

-_Rick

Leif Thorvalds> > > >

Arch:

Mostly, I start with a commercial Danish oil and add more BLO (Boiled Linseed Oil), Polyurethane, and a fair bit of thinner to arrive at my soaking solution. It DOES eventually gel, but with various adjustments along the way, I can usually get a couple of years out of a batch before I need to throw it out and start anew. (It's painful to do so, because it is really difficult these days because everything is considered toxic waste. Getting the remaining ten or fifteen gallons of soup dried so it can be disposed of is a chore in itself.)

The "coarse grit gouge" is kind of a local joke here in Hawaii, and for me is mostly a response to blowing up bowls during that "last cut". I really got tired of ducking chunks of bowl when I got a bit of chatter (usually reaching too deep into a vessel for the shank diameter of tool or a thinning edge) or just "lost it" because I was turning a bit too fast for the diameter and thickness I was working on. It was also a response to problems with the tools I was using. Sometimes, I would get a little torn grain (usually on the inside of a bowl) from improper tool technique, or pushing on too long without sharpening. Cleaning this up sometimes is extremely difficult, and if I left extra wood, I found it was quicker and easier to just sand it away later, especially once I found the LDD worked to help make sanding easier. Sometimes I just run out of time on a turning session, and when I get back to the bowl, it's easier to just plunk it into the LDD solution, and on to drying and grinding than it would be to risk breaking it by trying to turn it thinner to begin with. Most days, I turn to a considerably thinner wall than 1/2 or 5/8" because I have the time and the wood is cooperating. If I'm short on time, or I seem to be pressing my luck, I leave it thicker because I know I can just grind it out later, and it really doesn't take all that long (especially compared to cutting a new bowl from a raw log section).

However, the biggest reason I use LDD is to make sanding faster and keep the paper from loading. I've really had minimal problems with shrink checking/cracking with Norfolk pine over the past few years... There have been a few other woods that I've worked that were definitely in the category of needing help, but having other techniques in the old tool bag besides LDD are helpful too.

A purist would say I'm hacking my way to the final shape, not finessing it into being (only) with metal tools. A few would even say it's wrong to use abrasives more coarse than 150 grit on anything turned, and that if it is needed, you're not really a turner at all. Of course, they have their right to their opinion, just as I have a right to grind out a bowl if I feel a desire to. What I really think counts is what it looks like when it's done, not necessarily how you get there. As a result, we all have different methods, and like many other people, I'm always looking for a new method that may make it possible to turn out work with less time without compromising quality of the finished object.

Just hearing of others successes and failures gives me ideas to try in my own work, and I hope that the process I use may give others ideas that they might be able to consider. Everyone works differently, and what works for you may not work for me, and so forth. I think forums like this allow us to all share in a manner that can help each other, whether we know it or not...

Thanks

--Rick

Arch wrote:

Leif:

I agree with your sentiments on most items, and we can all learn something from what works or doesn't work for someone else. It is important for people to realize that the primary reason I use LDD is to make sanding easier, not to keep the cracking and checking down. With Norfolk Pine, anyway, there isn't as much problem with cracking as with other woods. In addition, even with some problematic woods, different techniques will allow making a bowl without losing it to shrinkage cracks. (For example, an end grain bowl of Macadamia Nut wood is a beautiful thing, but it is a rare day you get one done without it splitting from the edge to the center. On the other hand, wood from the same stump, turned side grain can make a really nice natural edge bowl without nary a problem...)

I haven't gone to the trouble of using a hydrometer to check the specific gravity of the LDD vat, but do add more (and/or water) as it "feels right" for my application. If I had the time, I'd do a more scientific study of several woods that are commonly available here to see if they responded to higher concentrations of LDD to water, but as I don't turn them as often, I just haven't taken the time. Perhaps when I get my new workshop built, I'll (temporarily, at least) have enough space to do something like that.

As you have indicated, we each need to determine what works for us, and that also means experimentation. Without that, we wouldn't even be using LDD in any concentration, or for any reasons except trying to get the dirt off our hands. I comment everyone for wanting to learn more about what others do, and think healthy discussions like these help us all. I don't think I'll be doing any "high concentration" LDD for the near future at least, or primarily for crack abatement, but that could change in an instant if a need arose.

We all need to do what makes sense for us. Here in Hawaii, there are several people that are playing with or using versions of the LDD process (I think Ron Kent is on Oahu. I'm on Hawaii, the big island). Quite a few on this island are using a variation of modified Danish oil for Norfolk Pine (and some other woods), and the incredible amount of sharing going on here has helped us all. I know I wouldn't be using the process if it hadn't been shared by someone else first.

Thanks you for carrying the LDD cross, so to speak, so others can also learn what works for you, and for listening to what others have said. It only helps us all in the end.

Thanks

-_Rick

Leif Thorvalds> > > >

Arch:

Mostly, I start with a commercial Danish oil and add more BLO (Boiled Linseed Oil), Polyurethane, and a fair bit of thinner to arrive at my soaking solution. It DOES eventually gel, but with various adjustments along the way, I can usually get a couple of years out of a batch before I need to throw it out and start anew. (It's painful to do so, because it is really difficult these days because everything is considered toxic waste. Getting the remaining ten or fifteen gallons of soup dried so it can be disposed of is a chore in itself.)

The "coarse grit gouge" is kind of a local joke here in Hawaii, and for me is mostly a response to blowing up bowls during that "last cut". I really got tired of ducking chunks of bowl when I got a bit of chatter (usually reaching too deep into a vessel for the shank diameter of tool or a thinning edge) or just "lost it" because I was turning a bit too fast for the diameter and thickness I was working on. It was also a response to problems with the tools I was using. Sometimes, I would get a little torn grain (usually on the inside of a bowl) from improper tool technique, or pushing on too long without sharpening. Cleaning this up sometimes is extremely difficult, and if I left extra wood, I found it was quicker and easier to just sand it away later, especially once I found the LDD worked to help make sanding easier. Sometimes I just run out of time on a turning session, and when I get back to the bowl, it's easier to just plunk it into the LDD solution, and on to drying and grinding than it would be to risk breaking it by trying to turn it thinner to begin with. Most days, I turn to a considerably thinner wall than 1/2 or 5/8" because I have the time and the wood is cooperating. If I'm short on time, or I seem to be pressing my luck, I leave it thicker because I know I can just grind it out later, and it really doesn't take all that long (especially compared to cutting a new bowl from a raw log section).

However, the biggest reason I use LDD is to make sanding faster and keep the paper from loading. I've really had minimal problems with shrink checking/cracking with Norfolk pine over the past few years... There have been a few other woods that I've worked that were definitely in the category of needing help, but having other techniques in the old tool bag besides LDD are helpful too.

A purist would say I'm hacking my way to the final shape, not finessing it into being (only) with metal tools. A few would even say it's wrong to use abrasives more coarse than 150 grit on anything turned, and that if it is needed, you're not really a turner at all. Of course, they have their right to their opinion, just as I have a right to grind out a bowl if I feel a desire to. What I really think counts is what it looks like when it's done, not necessarily how you get there. As a result, we all have different methods, and like many other people, I'm always looking for a new method that may make it possible to turn out work with less time without compromising quality of the finished object.

Just hearing of others successes and failures gives me ideas to try in my own work, and I hope that the process I use may give others ideas that they might be able to consider. Everyone works differently, and what works for you may not work for me, and so forth. I think forums like this allow us to all share in a manner that can help each other, whether we know it or not...

Thanks

--Rick

Arch wrote:

Nope, can't even be called good biology. The cells are empty of cytoplasm in the part of the tree you save - the wood. They also contain stomata through which liquid was exchanged. That osmosis halo only counts with semi-permeable membranes.

Therefore, the

Strange, because this is the only part which, by analogy to PEG, stands a chance of being defended. Essentially the argument is that something is "left behind" in the cellular spaces, as is true with PEG. I believe you and others suggest it may be the glycerol. Now, having played PEG back in the days of Moulthrop, and, unlike others, doing some research on it, prior, I can say that:

a) Soak times quoted for LDD are absolutely inadequate for replacement. Actually, they vary widely, even among those reporting success. Suggestive?

b) Glycerol, a liquid at normal temperatures, cannot fill cellular spaces as PEG 1000, a solid (ok, almost solid) does _after the wood is dried_ , with emphasis for alcohol advocates on the drying. Can't dry anything by soaking it. Sort of like fighting for peace.

c) The volume replacement schedule you quoted is so low that, unless you're doing tiny turnings, you can't be replacing anything significant, with PEG (also in a recommended 50/50 solution by weight) it was not uncommon to have to add a half pound of the solid after soaking three smallish 8-10" bowls for the recommended three months to get back to the proper SG. Lot of space in those empty cells. There's also a dilution, but with the short soak times and spin while thin, that's going to be fairly small.

Answer you questions?

Hey, if you keep the surface wetted while you're working it, it can't dry out and crack. The thinner you cut and the harder you spin, the dryer the piece is when you take it off the lathe, and the less it will change shape, because, as noted before, all shrinkage, like politics, is local. By denying a large constituency of adjacent cells to pull together ... well, red state, blue state, one pulls right, the other left and everything gets "filibustered" so nothing's done.

Leif, I'm not taking any sides on the LDD debate, but if the LDD solution is drawing water out of the wood so as to thin the solution, and requiring the addition of more LDD, wouldn't you see the level of the solution rising in your container? After a while of soaking bowls and drawing out water, wouldn't the container start to overflow? I don't mean to attack your explanation, just seeing if it holds water, so to speak. Martin

The word you are looking for is 'bulking'. PEG works by bulking, not drying the wood. People have speculated, but not emphatically stated, let alone proven that LDD bulks. Others say it doesn't bulk. The jury is still out on that.

Suggestive?

I've been sceptical of the short soak times, too, but then people are reporting successes. Until we know what's going on, we don't know if the short soak times are short, or long for that matter.

What is the difference between glycerol and glycerine? btw: The FPL talks about drying wood using various liquids including salt presoaks and hot oil immersion.

Dan

Martin, There is no 'debate.' This is a discussion, collaboration, and investigation of LDD seasoning.

PS: fyi: When people say things like, "I'm not taking any sides on the LDD debate, but..." That's the same as saying "I'm not taking any sides on the LDD debate, but (I will)..." ;)