is there "marine grade" lumber?

Sorry Cloud Diver, but unless YOU can cite any tests to contradict one of the most knowledgeable contributors to this site, your theories carry even less weight.

Just for fun, heres two serious studies that show the pitfalls and problems with thinning epoxies

http://www.boatcraftnsw.com.au/botecote/Solvents in Epoxy & Cost Analysis.pdf

http://www.westsystem.com/ss/thinning-west-system-epoxy/

 

You obviously don't get the point, and I won't bother trying to explain it to you. So keep believing everything you read and don't bother considering any actual experience performed by people with hands on experience.

This kind of crap is why I have only been reading info on this forum (and others) for a long time and never bother posting... Too many forum rangers who like to crap on everyone else.
I'll just keep DOING work and post less or not all, while the rest of you scour the web for contradictory 'studies' to poop on other posters to prove your superior knowledge and feed your ego.

By the way, last time someone told me there were 'many studies (intelligence reports) indicated the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq was just before I had boots on ground in country, and guess what we found?

 

OK - feel free to ignore the facts from two leading industry players.

 

If that is your response, not only did you NOT read the WEST document carefully, you did not pay attention to substrate mentioned by the OP or the details of my post i.e. the boat types & intended use...

You just like to jump all over people, its pretty easy to see at least that much.

 

Lets see - your advice

"For water proofing I like expoxy, thinned 10 percent for the first 2 coats it will penetrate deeper into the wood and you don't have to use fiberglass over it unless the design warrants it"

West Systems advice :

"Adding solvent is a quick, simple method of thinning epoxy, but unlike using heat to thin it, the strength and moisture resistance of the cured epoxy are drastically affected."

 

You need to look at a thread as a whole rather than take one post to judge context. More evidence that your only purpose is getting your jollies by telling people 'You are wrong!'

Anyway, learn to read a little closer and consider the context of a thread in terms of a discussion rather than post by post and you will have less heart-burn.

And since you pointed it out I suppose its wort saying that I did not specify that thinned epoxy for purposes of penetration should still be top coated with regular epoxy before curing for a good chemical bond. The statement was made directly related to PINE and not other lumber. Nor did I specify that application in relation to a layer of fiberglass either. The OP was asking about waterproofing only, and that is all I was addressing. I din't see you jump all over Gonzo for suggesting paint now did you? I don't think its the best choice in terms of long term durability, however it is not WRONG since technically even water based paints will provide some level of water-proof encapsulation. But whatever... the super-posting know it alls have declared I am WRONG and shown me evidence (of which one looks like an 8th grade science fair project) that was conveniently downloaded from the internet... How can I argue with THAT?!

 

I forgot to mention; the Aussie study you posted has contradictory information to the WEST document... So you don't flounder again I'll help you with the first glaring problem I noticed; The Aussie study actually recommends using thinned epoxy to wet out glass.
"Thinning epoxies is especially useful when laminating fiberglass or other fabrics, to accelerate absorption of the resin into the fibre
bundles."
Now you go ahead and tell me what the WEST study says...

Further evidence that you didn't actually read or understand what was in either document.

BTW, the Aussie study has nothing to do with epoxies that are thinned by the user; the products mentioned are used 'as is'.

 

Ummm - posts by the manufacturer or major reseller of both products are wrong ?

By Bruce McConkey, BoatCraft Pacific

West System Technical Department
"A question frequently posed to our technical staff is "can I thin WEST SYSTEM epoxy so it will flow or penetrate better?" The answer to that question is "yes, but not without consequences." Many of the advantages of thinning epoxy are offset by disadvantages in other areas of epoxy performance."

You wouldn't have to get so aerated if you just actually read a bit before making non-factual statements.

I am not having a personal go at you, just your misinformation.

 

Taking something for gospel just because it comes from the manufacturer shows that you don't understand the politics behind such information. When your car manufacturer says you should only use one type of motor oil from one brand or your motor performance may suffer do you believe that is true? Fact, look at the crank case of late model Ducati's and see the sticker "use only SHELL XXXX".

Misinformation? Boats I built 20 years ago are still running in Adirondack Lakes and Rivers without any rot, water penetration, or de-lamination. I will admit though... I never built one from pine! LOL

 

The Geougon brothers were boatbuilders and had hands on experience. In their defence, they didn't start a chemical product company, but experimented with epoxy for their own projects first. A good friend of mine worked with them during the early years, and they build boats and iceboats and actually tested them in the water and ice.

 

So you wouldn't believe PAR because he didn't show any studies. Then you dismissed studies anyway, when rwatson showed you some. Now you're refusing to accept technical data directly from the factory, because manufacturers are liars.

That's a pretty hardcore "my mind is made up; don't try to confuse me with facts" stance, son.

Your attempt to equate an epoxy maker's warning that thinning with solvents instead of heat impairs its performance with a car maker's recommendation to use a particular brand of oil is quite a stretch. A better comparison would be with the car maker telling you not to run on under-inflated tires, or use oil below a certain weight.

 

Substantiation of my suggestion about your thinning comments is easily documented and it's surprising that after a couple of decades, there are folks that still don't want to conduct the tests themselves or believe the peer or independent testing results.

BoteCoat does "thin" epoxy and suggests it, but before you get your panties in a bunch, you should have a much closer look at the product they're speaking about, which isn't a reactive modified dilution, such as the Smith Brothers stuff, but a wholly different engineering approach (pretty clever actually).

So can you thin, yep, sure you can, but as to improving waterproofing, well nope, at least not compared to neat marine epoxy. Compared to varnish, or under paint or other coatings, sure, some level of improvement could be seen (there's industry peer and independent testing on this too BTW), but not as much as most misinformed proponentes might think.

Simply put, lets take a basic amine cure 2:1 (bisphenol A, bisphenol F, Glycidylamine, you know - the usual suspects) and cut it only 10%. What do you think happens to it's modulus of elongation, compressive strength and other physical attributes (yep, you can look these up too). Would you be surprised to see a 40% drop in tensile strength with a 10% cut? Well damn, that kind of sucks if it's holding something, that will keep your socks dry, don't it. How about moisture gain in a test hunk of balsa with a 10% cut of this same resin system? At full strength you could see as much as 3%, but after the modest cut (reactive of course) try well over 20% moisture vapor penetration. Oops, this is a problem. In fact, it's a problem that's now being exploited by owners of carvels. The plank seams are getting the thinned goo treatment, knowing they'll still swell, but also harden up a touch.

For some it's a marketing decision. Just having the word "epoxy" on the label can increase sales, so tiny potions of the bisphenol-A diglycidyl molecule and bingo, a sales spike. For others, at least it seems currently in light of the data, a wholesale purchase into the advertising hype or passed down wife's tail stuff, that isn't substantiated with testing over well established understanding of the chemistry and physical properties therein.

Simply put, I'll match my understanding of the several different epoxy formulations currently in use. If you know your chemistry and the realities of it as an adhesive or a coating, then refute what's long established. Yeah, some will poke a finger into uncomfortable places, but this is the role of the antagonist, isn't it. They always get burned at the stake before being proven the earth does revolve around the sun.

Look, there are folks that have pushed these sort of things (reactive diluents in epoxy) for market value (and been sued several times for it) and those that have performed the tests (I have, more than once) and the data has long since been in, so as a buddy of mine, who is a pyrotechnic engineer is fond of saying . . . "if you see me running, do try to keep up . . ."

So, tell me, what happens to your brand of epoxy, when it's cut but something at say 10%. Have you water vapor penetration data? How about hardness (Barcol or Shore D will do), tensile and flexural modulus and strength, tensile elongation, compressive strength, water absorption after 30 days, etc., etc., etc.

 

It's obvious you didn't READ the reports either.

 

PAR... I wrote a longer response, then deleted it. Its no use trying to get you to see the forest through the trees. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, maybe not directly to you, but you are NUKING it. I also felt your suggestion to the OP, (I am paraphrasing) to go read more books before becoming a professional 'dumb question' poster was passive aggressive and rude...

I have to stress again that people need to READ the two reports... but whatever, I guess reading comprehension and a the simple application of logic can be too much to ask.

At the end of the day, I'll just take all the blame because I wasn't specific enough, so let me correct myself. I've never used 2 coats of thinned epoxy, I've only used one followed by regular viscosity to wet out 4oz or 6 oz glass... before the penetrating layer has kicked off to get a good chemical bond. I only suggested 2 thinned coats because the OP was asking about Pine and only for waterproofing without a glass layer, and I should have specified the top coat be regular viscosity. So is a reduction from 11,500 psi to 7500 psi really going make a difference when the would would fail under that force before the epoxy would? WEST also did not mention their method of testing by the way.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "NUKING" it, but if you're referring to heat, you're possibly think about temperature well above a normal threshold of it's usual thermolytic cure temperatures, so certainly no more harm than the molecular realignment process, if performed at the appropriate temperatures. No one I know would suggest otherwise, on the usual formulations of room temperature set bisphenol A's, commonly in use within the industry.

You do seem to have missed the formulation difference with the BoteCoat product (TRPDA) and their understandable recommendations, in regard to it's implementation. This is in comparison to most other offerings or home brew diluent formulations. In fact, the two graphs on the BoteCoat PDF show precisely what West System (and others) testing has found. You see most thin with a solvent or combination of solvents, which decreases solids content and weaken the molecule cross linkage, during realignment. This matrix alteration creates a lattice large enough for moisture vapor molecules to pass through, thereby a permeable membrane, which isn't good, from a waterproofing point of view. The chemistry isn't difficult once you get your head around the basics and "players" involved. These same molecular "gamesmanship" tricks are exploding, with significant advances in single part systems, such as polyurea and polyurethanes, as well as glycidyl (aliphatic) and glycidylamine, plus multi part polyurethanes formulations. The Americas Cup teams and aerospace industries (those that have the money and equipment) are having fun with them.

Thanks for the correction and in some ways I agree, as a thinned coat on raw and eventually unsheathed wood can be justified, though not for waterproofing so much as just sealing the grain before a top coat of some sort goes down. Of course, the best choice is another coat of neat epoxy and an even better choice would be a "hot on hot" approach to the raw wood, instead of solvent thinned epoxy. Hot on hot has as much penetration, yet leaves a 100% solids content in the cellular structure of the wood.

One of the surprises we found with testing was about the importance of coating "penetration" in waterproofing. It was surprisingly discovered, that penetration had nothing to do with waterproofness. Yeah, it was hard for most of us to buy, but the tests where repeated, independently verified, etc. and the same deal. Again, what was found was it's the coating quality, not it's depth of penetration that had the most impact on making things waterproof. This said, penetration can help in regard to repair, but this is a different subject and argument certainly can be made to recommend penetration, but penetration of a waterproof product, rather than a mostly waterproof product, seems preferred, hence the hot on hot recommendation from vendors, formulators and coatings geeks.