methanol instead of dna for bowls?

[Scott Hurley]

I've been drying roughed bowl blanks in DNA for a couple of years with great results - as long as you keep your DNA fairly fresh. Because DNA is miscible with water, the water from the wood dilutes the DNA, and it becomes less effective over time. I didn't realize that until I noticed that the bowl blanks started to take longer and longer to dry. Then I found a thread at AAW had a link to an explanation. The link is "http://alcoholsoaking.blogspot.com" and then click the "determining alcohol percentage" link. In that page, it mentioned that the alcohol percentage should be at least 60%, and when I measured mine, I found it was only about 15%. Needless to say, my alcohol soaking was just about useless at that percentage. I now have a new supply of DNA.

Scott

[Mark Cothren]

Confirmed by controlled experiment. Ask the others if they've done any.

Controlled experiment? I don't reckon so... you've obviously done your homework - can't argue that. I'm just not sure how you come up with an opinion that We Who DNA are wasting our time... I haven't compared my DNA results against any other method. I haven't seen the need to since this has produced favorable results for me with hardly any exceptions.

Opinions differ on this method - no disputing that... but we might as well agree to disagree cuz you ain't gonna change many minds of us DNAlcoholics...

PEACE...

[Dennis Peacock]

Well, let's just say that I've done the following:

Air dried - 2 years per blank
Boiled - Too costly over time and dangerous to boot.
Brown Bagged - again waiting for over 1 year per blank
DNA - Been doing it this way now for 2 years with near 100% success rate. I've gone through 3 batches of DNA in 2 years which I figure isn't bad at all compared to using it to help dry over 80 bowl blanks.

No other process has yielded such a high success rate at the DNA method.

All this and $5 will get you a burger and a coffee and MacDonalds.

[Dick Strauss]

John,
First off, DNA can be had for $35 for a five gallon can at you local paint store. Do not use methanol because it is very toxic as others have mentioned. Please check Dave Smith's website for the scientific data. This data was gathered under more controlled conditions than the other data we've been presented so far.

RANT----I had a whole long note to correct some DNA misgivings but lost it due to time constraints, so I'll cut it short. I hate it when I get booted for not completing a note in less than 30-60 minutes or whatever!!!

George,
You've made a lot of statements that try to prove that DNA doesn't work. Let me ask and and give possible answers to a some of your statements to help the group get back on the right course.

Q1:Why don't vintners/distillers lose alcohol by storing their products in wooden containers?
A1:Vintners and distillers do lose alcohol for aged products that are stored in wood. Have you ever noticed that good 20 year old scotch has a lower alcohol content than the new stuff. The same is true for aged wines. Alcohol makers have confirmed this fact in several articles and television programs.



You state that alcohol will not penetrate the wood more than 1/8"-1/4". You state that you saw an experiment using alcohol and a colorant. When you cut the wood open after soaking, you could only see the pigment/dye so many eighths of an inch deep. So you concluded that the alcohol it didn't penetrate any deepr than the pigment/dye.

Q2:Why can't I see pigment in the middle of a soaked piece of wood if the alcohol and/or colorant mix did actually penetrate?

A2:Was this colorant a suspended pigment? If so, it won't penetrate the wood because of its large molecular size in relation to the the membrane openings. We see this same thing in wood finishing where pigments stay on the surface of the wood. If a dye was used, it is likely that the dye may not penetrate very far because of its large molecular size whereas alcohol has a smaller molecular footprint and could penetrate. You also lose dye concentration as you pass through more wood fibers and some of the dyes attach to the fibers. This doesn't prove that the alcohol didn't pentrate any deeper into the piece. Your orginal logic suggests that if a liquid is crystal clear, it must be water...which we all know is not necessarily true.

If the alcohol does penetrate through osmosis or some other mechanism (as I'm sure it does), isn't it possible it could might either combine with and/or displace water? If it displaces or combines with water, couldn't alcohol (or the combination) be more easily lost to evaporation due to its increased evaporation rate at room temp in an air environment?


Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm!!!!!

Dick

[George Tokarev]

Well, let's just say that I've done the following:

Air dried - 2 years per blank
Boiled - Too costly over time and dangerous to boot.
Brown Bagged - again waiting for over 1 year per blank
DNA - Been doing it this way now for 2 years with near 100% success rate. I've gone through 3 batches of DNA in 2 years which I figure isn't bad at all compared to using it to help dry over 80 bowl blanks.

No other process has yielded such a high success rate at the DNA method.

All this and $5 will get you a burger and a coffee and MacDonalds.

Or a Grande at Starbucks.

I've got a few years experience on you, since you mention it. More than twenty more, and I've dried a few pieces in my time. This is the west wall drying rack.

I encourage everyone to study the Wood Handbook data available free at the FPL site to learn about the nature of wood and wood drying. Their exhaustive research is no substitute for faith, but it's been really reliable. Your time and money are your own, but good information is not difficult to obtain.

http://preview.mmouse8.photosite.com...4062482305.jpg

[George Tokarev]

John,


Q1:Why don't vintners/distillers lose alcohol by storing their products in wooden containers?
A1:Vintners and distillers do lose alcohol for aged products that are stored in wood. Have you ever noticed that good 20 year old scotch has a lower alcohol content than the new stuff. The same is true for aged wines. Alcohol makers have confirmed this fact in several articles and television programs.



You state that alcohol will not penetrate the wood more than 1/8"-1/4". You state that you saw an experiment using alcohol and a colorant. When you cut the wood open after soaking, you could only see the pigment/dye so many eighths of an inch deep. So you concluded that the alcohol it didn't penetrate any deepr than the pigment/dye.

Q2:Why can't I see pigment in the middle of a soaked piece of wood if the alcohol and/or colorant mix did actually penetrate?

A2:Was this colorant a suspended pigment? If so, it won't penetrate the wood because of its large molecular size in relation to the the membrane openings. We see this same thing in wood finishing where pigments stay on the surface of the wood. If a dye was used, it is likely that the dye may not penetrate very far because of its large molecular size whereas alcohol has a smaller molecular footprint and could penetrate. You also lose dye concentration as you pass through more wood fibers and some of the dyes attach to the fibers. This doesn't prove that the alcohol didn't pentrate any deeper into the piece. Your orginal logic suggests that if a liquid is crystal clear, it must be water...which we all know is not necessarily true.

If the alcohol does penetrate through osmosis or some other mechanism (as I'm sure it does), isn't it possible it could might either combine with and/or displace water? If it displaces or combines with water, couldn't alcohol (or the combination) be more easily lost to evaporation due to its increased evaporation rate at room temp in an air environment?


Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm!!!!!

Dick

Absolutely, the potency is diminished. The volume of alcohol and the volume of water lost are predicted accurately by Raoult's law. The smell is enticing, too, if you've visited. What isn't true is that alcohol bonds to the wood. Which, I believe is the essence of one "explaination" of the method.

The color was a dye. Standard stuff from staining cellular samples.

Osmosis demands a semi-permeable membrane. None such available. The penetration would be through stomata in the cell walls which allow lateral communication when the cells are actually full of cytoplasm. Good information on wood structure at that FPL site, really.

Think so? Violates experimental data, of course. http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/...a/idealpd.html There is an azeotrope of ethanol/water. Well known one comprising approximately 95% ethanol and 5% water. Can't enrich any more by evaporation. Which suggests that if any other existed as yet undiscovered by science, you'd never be able to get to the 95%.

No need to speculate, really, the information's all out there on the net. Or you could try a side-by-side experiment.

[Jason Roehl]

A few years ago, I took the tour of the Jack Daniels Distillery in Tennessee. They had a cutaway display of the charred (red, I believe it was) oak barrels in which they age their whiskey. They said with changes in season, temperature and humidity, the whiskey penetrates more or less deeply. The barrels were maybe approaching 3/4" thick, and the whiskey line (very visible) was at least halfway through. So, 3/8" penetration isn't out of the question. How quick does it get that deep? That I don't know.

[Eric Wong]

In my line of work, DNA is Deoxyribonucleic Acid...

My projects usually involve the trading of DNA - mine on the project in the form of blood, and the wood's in me in the form of slivers.