is there "marine grade" lumber?

I didn't think 'Nuking It' was an expression exclusive to the military, but I suppose it hasn't made it rounds through all circles so I will explain... Nuking it, the way I express it, is applying far too much science/engineering/force or what have you when a simple solution will be all that is called for.

In context of this thread as a discussion, I was only considering waterproofing of a soft grain like Pine, which is what the OP was looking for. Again, I accept that I should have mentioned an additional top coat of un-thinned epoxy. I could pull a few books off the shelf that mention thinned epoxy but I'm sure the publication dates precede these studies. I just remember one phrase "Thin 10 percent and coat until rejection". I tried it but never had the patience to do more than one coat to see what said 'rejection' looked like, plus I didn't want to sand again so I'd lay the glass and wet out before the thinned coat kicked off to make sure I got the chemical bond. The builders I was learning from always looked at my work with high regard, my grandfather said 'why didn't I think of that?'

In general, all I'm saying is that a reduction in compressive strength is negligible when the purpose is to penetrate soft or loose grain fibers, top coated with regular expoy or epoxy paint, and sans the use of glass fiber... I think Gonzo mentioned in another thread about pine being used extensively in a specific regional design of work boat. If we were talking about racing yachts I would never suggest thinning epoxy. To me the viscosity of WEST 105 is plenty thin without Xylene or MEK.

I'm also not an expert on these solvents and try to use any solvent very sparingly, but I've always know MEK to be very similar to Acetone only that it evaporates slower making it better to use as a thinning agent. Xylene I haven't touched in years because its hard to find, or I'm just not looking in the right places. Either way, I never used the solvent mentioned in the WEST document to thin epoxy.

 

It's especially difficult, on a sight with many professionals, designers, engineers and NA's to accept common wisdom or a simple solution, that can't be verified or qualified in some reasonable fashion. Without a chemical understanding, your only option is testing, if you want to be sure about a technique or product and then a whole bunch of variables can creep in, unless really sound processes are employed.

Back in the 80's, when epoxy was getting a good foot hold, folks where treating it like the previous "wonder goo" (polyester) and started fiddling around with thinning it, changing activator (hardener) ratios etc. Most of these quickly showed how good or bad an idea they really were, but a few went on to promote and market solvent thinned epoxy as the new greatest thing, to seal and waterproof wood. In fact, the leader in this particular industry was sued a few times, once forced to change it's name and advertising claims, in light of actual testing. The testing started in the late 80's, but the suits didn't bear fruit until the 90's. By then, the cat was out of the bag and those that kept up with industry trends, had the needed heads up, but some died in the wool types, continued on with their store bought or home brews.

I used to work for one of these types and it rubbed of on me too, as I too was a big fan of penetrating epoxy, for just about everything from sealing wood to curing male pattern baldness. Because of this I was late to the band wagon, even though it had come home years earlier. After some research and my own testing, I find it pretty rare to need a penetrating epoxy.

I too remember reading somewhere about using thinned goo, in repeated coats, until the wood could suck up no more. In practice, I've found once the first coat goes down, you may have some dry spots, but the grain is essentially sealed anyway, if just below the surface.

To seal wood, I use a different technique than most, though it is gaining favor as folks fight with out gassing. Assuming it's not a hot on hot coat, I apply a neat coat with a squeegee or plastic applicator. I spread it around with the applicator or putty knife, pushing hard into the grain as I go. The knife or whatever is only a few degrees from parallel to the surface and lots of pressure, forcing the goo into the wood. I let this sit for a few minutes, to see if any areas go dry. If they do, I move some pooled goo into that area and wait again. After the short wait, I scrape the pooled epoxy to areas that haven't had any goo applied yet, intentionally removing any surface wetness as best as practical. I do this to prevent out gassing. Bubbles rising up from a warmer substrate, will form in pooled epoxy, but if there's no pooled epoxy on the surface, there's nothing to form a bubble in. It also makes sanding easier. I do this only for the first coat on raw wood. Once this coat kicks off, it's essentially sealed, though film thickness is an issue, so more coats are necessary to bulk it up. At least one more if it's a faying surface, 2 more if it's to be brightly finished or 'glassed.

Technically, bot MEK and acetone are part of the keytone family and basically as simple as a couple of extra hydrogen atoms and a carbon difference between them. In this vain toluene and xylene are also very similar, so if you can get Toluene, instead of the faster drying xylene, well it'll work fine. I can get both at Ace Hardware. See, this technical crap can be helpful after all . . .

 

Nobody is above being asked for a citation.

In virtually every field of science, senior scientists, long-established experts in their respective fields, provide citations as a matter of course to differentiate between their opinion and established fact.

If it's a fact, demonstrate it. If it's your opinion, own it.

 

When my book comes out, it'll include the appropriate footnotes Jammer. The industry leader's tests in this area, where linked previously in the thread, so possibly you need to read it in full, before the assumptions.

 

Amateur....just following along. I read the piece by West regarding thinning epoxy. One sentence stood out:

"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."

Isn't this just what Paul is saying?

BTW, my restored 73 finally goes in next week. Thanks to all the people here who were so helpful along the way. I'll put up some pictures when I can.

 

Cloud Diver you're hilarious

I don't know why I even read this old thread but you crack me up. I don't know if you're right or wrong and don't really care but your comments on the "experts" on here that always want to tell people they are inexperienced and uninformed are right on. Mostly it seems to be people with something like 15k posts trying to tell others that the boat they want to build is all wrong and what they really should do is buy some plans of a boat designed by this "expert" because its better than any other design, more modern, and the computer told them it would be great. Who has time to write 15k posts, and still design and build boats? No one I know that is seriously in the business. Then their groupies jump in. Anyway, this seems to be why lots of others don't post much.

 

Maybe I can answer you : I gather from your comments that you are at the same intellectual level, or slightly below, that of those who, in contempt, you call "experts" and you seem to despise.

 

thanks

I'm not entirely sure who it is I despise, but I'll assume you mean the "experts" I referenced so I'm quite pleased to be considered at the same (or slightly below) their intellectual level. I guess in your eyes that makes me an expert (or slightly below one).

 

I understand that the conversation in this post got a bit "heated". That being said, what is the point of your original comment? Just to fuel up the fire again? Seems like a big waste of time to me.

 

You know, things get slow here in the winter and I have some down time so I thought I'd see if there was anything interesting on here and the first thing I read reminds me why I never participate in discussions here. Someone asks a question and then the usual argument starts, etc and the original question is completely ignored. My message was really just to Cloud Diver to tell him I thought his posts were funny.

 

We have VERY passionate people in here who have a myriad of both professional and hobby experience. There are many debates of what "works" vs. what's "right". I'm sure the sticklers for the rules get bent out of shape by the people who improvise, and the Hobbyists get out of sorts when they are told to go back and rethink how they were going to do something. Personally, I refer to "the book" when I'm 40+ miles off shore, I take a lot of pride in knowing what I have built is taking me safely where I want to go.

 

And there are folks who are the leading experts in their own shops.

 

You obviously haven't read many threads here. Most contributors here address the question(s), possible add a few of their own, as commonly we don't have enough information provided to a concise and/or accurate reply. Maybe you should stick with your usual routine and not participate, seeing as your 9 months between posts has you bothered enough to toss vague innuendo. We're adults, if you have something to say lets have it, other wise go back to the head in the sand approach, possibly over at SA instead or the bilge at WoodenBoat.

Does the discussion get heated at times, yep, sure does, which is a healthy thing, usually productive as well. Do some posters focus on only the negative banter, yep, sure do, though these folks tend to eliminate themselves over time. I'll apologize (wouldn't be the first time) if I screw up a contribution or mis-state something. In the same vain, I'll stand on my ability to reasonably and concisely defend my post contents. I may at times be a little glib, coy or even bluntly frank, but it's nothing person and most seem to take it for what it is.

This particular thread touched on several subjects, but was mostly a subject I've been trying to dispel rumors and BS about for some time. The advertising claims by some of the diluted epoxy reformulators has lead them to gain customers, all thinking, yeah it'll seal things up, when in fact ALL testing has shown these claims to be incorrect. In fact, so incorrect one company has been sued a few times and eventually had to change it's name to comply with a court order. The data and testing is all available, though several sources, so try Google, if you have issue with my position. Simply put and as testing has shown, "penetrating" epoxies don't seal wood, nor do they waterproof anything. Anyone still on this band wagon needs to get kicked off, before they ruin someone's boat. This said, these epoxy types can improve bond promotion for subsequent coats (of whatever), though other then peel strength, not by much (typically a couple of percent difference).

Lastly after well over a decade of contributions, typically one or two replies every day or so, the total adds up. Currently I'm just finished an epoxy run on a centerboard and between chasing drips, I'm making today's first reply to a thread here. Hell maybe I'll make another before I head back out to the barn.