I just viewed the video on the home page by Roland Johnson. He demonstrates a mixture that promises a quick drying wipe on varnish solution. I recognize all of the ingredients except the Alkyd Varnish he adds to the mix.
After viewing it, any varnishers out there have a varnish from a can that would work well with this mixture that he demonstrates? I was thinking of using waterlox to just test the recipe. In most cases, I have been happy with the waterlox and some japan dryer to get it dried up. Like to hear a little feedback.
dan
Replies
Pratt & Lambert 38 is a high quality varnish with alkyd resin modifiying soya oil, making it relatively light in color. You should be able to find a local paint store that carries Pratt & Lambert products. It isn't in any of the big box stores. I'm not sure why P&L 38 would be though have problems with moisture resistance, especially since this is clearly an interior only oil/varnish mix. While tung oil makes a very good ingrediant for manufacturing especially water resistant varnishes, adding some to an alkyd varnish may or may not have any effect in that dimension. I'd sure like to see some systematic testing before I was confident of that result.
Thinning alone would make it suitable for wiping on application, and because those coats would be thin, increase drying time too.
Maybe this finish works well and holds up OK, but frankly I'm a bit dubious. Tung oil doesn't generally respond to metallic driers such as in Japan driers so I am a bit unclear how that is going to have its cure accelerated. Are there exceptions for specific driers and how does one know what driers are actually being used.? I should add that the 2 parts of Japan drier recommended far exceeds the manufacturers recommended amount which is 4 ounces per gallon, maxed according to his proportions there would be just over 8.5 ounces per gallon.
For that matter, varnish makers probably have specific reasons for the driers they choose, paticularly now that leveling and air bubbles are more problematic if VOC rules are to be met. Adding a basically unknown mix of driers is a risk, I'd think.
Perhaps it's some kind of balancing game. Add soft, slow curing tung oil to the accelerated varnish to keep it from becoming too brittle. In any event it could just be a fortuitous combination that happens to work. A different set of driers might well work differently I'd think.
Incidentally, the picture in the article shows an Briwax Original can. And the text implies that rubbing out with wax and steel wool for a "medium luster" finish. But as a recent thread about Briwax showed, the original, which contains Toluene, has the potential for damaging some finishes if applied before they have fully cured.
Edited 4/7/2008 1:18 pm ET by SteveSchoene
Not to over simplify your response: just thinning out some varnish like waterlox with naptha, min spirits or turp and a small amount of japan drier is going to get you thin enough to put the varnish on with a cloth and perhaps give you a little harder layer? I'm not looking to get a rubber like coating on a wooden mast for my Lightning, I'm leaning more towards a general interior varnish with a fairly quick dry time.
I guess I've grown impatient with the shellac schedule over the years so I lean toward shorter dry time finishes.
Any thoughts are much appreciated.
dan
I'm confused. Waterlox is already thin enough to be wiped on with a cloth (I use a paper towel). And it dries fast.
-Steve
Steve
I could probably get away with Waterlox and japan drier when I put it on my rifle stocks but I found the waterlox was a little to shiny and "filmy" around the carving details. By thinning it out a little, I could rub it out with burlap or an old rag and knock the shine down without altering the carving features(they are generally 1/16").
When I went straight from the can, it was a little more work for me. So... I opted for thinner and a little drier to the mix.
Waterlox dries pretty darn fast. I have to put it in small jars and fill it to the top to keep it from skinning over so fast. Its a battle since I don't use it that often.
I'm no expert on varnish so its adjust and test as I go.
dan
I keep a can of that Bloxygen around to refill my partial Waterlox containers. It really does work.
And with Waterlox, you really do need to use it. Guess how I know? ;-)
-Steve
Yeah, Steve, that stuff really skins over fast. I know I've "preserved" partial cans for at least a year using Blox.
I first ran into this product back in 1960, when as a kid I helped my Dad finish the oak floors and knotty pine walls in our just built house. The last house I built (ten years back), I found some reclaimed southern yellow pine to do the floors. I used Waterlox Gym finish. It's held up to this day, even in the kitchen.
On furniture, I generally use the original formula, as its friendly to wipe on or brush on. As a top coat I usually finish off with a couple coats of the satin. It's "just right" in my opinion.
I've found zero downsides to Waterlox but for its cure time. It's easy to use and resistant to just about everything a normal home throws at it. I'm ever amazed at how many people have never heard of it.
Edited 4/8/2008 9:43 am ET by blewcrowe
Steve, (and Dan),
It depends on which Waterlox you are using. The sealer/finish is wiping varnish consistency (60%-65% mineral spirits, I believe), the original gloss is like any other varnish, and for some reason the original satin is somewhere in the middle of the other two.
Rob
"Maybe this finish works well and holds up OK, but frankly I'm a bit dubious. Tung oil doesn't generally respond to metallic driers such as in Japan driers so I am a bit unclear how that is going to have its cure accelerated. Are there exceptions for specific driers and how does one know what driers are actually being used.? I should add that the 2 parts of Japan drier recommended far exceeds the manufacturers recommended amount which is 4 ounces per gallon, maxed according to his proportions there would be just over 8.5 ounces per gallon."
Steve,
I was wondering the same thing when I read the article. Could it be that the magnum load of Japan drier affects the Tung oil? Or maybe it just cures the varnish so fast that the Tung oil gets dragged along for the ride. Either way, I don't see the Tung oil adding much in the way of benefits to this mixture. I would think that just thinning the P&L with MS and adding a small amount of Japan drier would accomplish much the same thing and leave you a harder, more durable finish.
Rob
Yeah, I'd agree. I really can't see the tung oil adding water resistance the more I think about it. So, if thinning the P&L doesn't make it dry fast enough, just a smidge of Japan thinner, not so much to leave a brittle finish prone to crazing, and to turning dark, which is what excess Japan drier is said to do.
For that matter, I don't really think you can get a varnish to dry fast enough to be relatively immune to dust, and at the same time have enough fluid time to apply easily and to level. If you start getting really fast, shift to a spray format, which opens up a whole host of different possibilities.
But what are Roland's proportions? The article says 5 parts varnish and 5 parts tung oil, but in the video he stands there and says "10 parts varnish and 10 parts tung oil" to 2 parts Japan drier and 2 parts turpentine.So what's the real mixture? Has anyone tried it?
This thread's gotten kinda muddy. Might be just sloppy expression of thoughts, but the mention of "just a smidge of Japan thinner" was too much to sit by and watch. Japan drier is not a thinner, it's a metallic drier. I did quite a bit of looking-into (low-level research) on driers when I was having some trouble with a tung-oil finish a couple years ago. Japan drier is a loose term that covers a variety of formulations. Tung oil responds only to the cobalt component of a Japan drier, so if you want to affect tung oil, it's best to simply buy some cobalt drier. Here is a quote from a post made back then:
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Edited 4/8/2008 10:45 am by forestgirl
Think Steve might have been casual with drier/thinner because he is suggesting japan drier with Pratt/Lambert 38. He questions the addition of tung oil in the mix Roland J is demonstrating. (my interpretation)
Don't remember reading advocates of Japan driers and tung oil. Truthfully, I'd like to hear from some others using Tung Oil as a regular finish. Might learn something new. My experience with oils is limited.
Let me try to be a little clearer and refine a bit what I am saying. First, yes, I do question the addition of tung oil as being of any benefit to increasing moisture resistance. Varnishes made with tung oil do tend to be relatively moisture resistance, but because that is true, it does not follow that creating an oil/varnish mix with tung oil will make the mix more water resistant than a good alkyd varnish alone.
Frankly, I wouldn't add Japan drier to the P&L 38. When it is thinned it will dry enough faster anyway. But, if you absolutely must tinker to increase drying speed, just use a very small amount of Japan driers to the varnish, an amount small enough that it won't make the varnish too brittle. But in general it's not really a good idea. The manufacturer chose the driers--why mess with the intentions of the Ph.D. finish chemists, especially on a relatively high end finish that the manufacturer isn't too likely to have skimped on just to save $0.10 a quart.
And, I too agree that Waterlox is a very high quality alternative to making your own wiping varnish, that dries quickly. It will yellow a bit more than the alkyd soya varnish that is P&L 38.
>> I do question the addition of tung oil as being of any benefit to increasing moisture resistance. Let me carry that one step further. There is no question that a good varnish is more water resistant than pure tung oil. Anyone who wants to confirm that can go to the Wood Handbook from the US Forest Service's Forest Products Lab. The only "finish" less water resistant is paste wax. Linseed oil and pure tung oil are almost transparent to water. Pure tung oil is more water resistant then linseed oil but neither is particularly water resistant. Adding a less water resistant material (tung oil) to a naturally more water resistant varnish CAN NOT INCREASE the mixture's water resistance. It makes no sense and is not logical. In fact, it has to make it less water resistant.Howie.........
Edited 4/8/2008 6:34 pm ET by HowardAcheson
I used tung oil mix (with varnish and thinner) on various things in the past and gradually stoped using it because it prolongs drying time (and there was more time for dust to accumulate). It actually gives a more satin look than linseed (instead of tung in the mix). Recently I removed a ceiling lamp enclosure from my kitchen (done in a Green and Green style) to modernize and get more light. When I disasembled the parts, they were stacked as sections on top of each other, my surprise was days later when I moved them because they were STUCKED together, tung did not let the mix dry completely and the lamp enclosure was topcoated in 1985!
Edited 4/8/2008 8:34 pm ET by woodshaves
Edited 4/8/2008 8:35 pm ET by woodshaves
Interesting discovery. I guess I'm still looking for the guy that likes to have tung oil around?? What's up with tung oil?
dan
It's almost all about marketing, dating from a time when "oil finished" furniture was a major fashion (Danish Modern), even though a lot of that was actually finished in something besides oil. There is so much tung oil finish around around because real tung oil is such a bad finish by itself. BLO is equally, or even worse, as a finish. It darkens more, both initially and over time and is even less moisture resistant than tung oil, though that isn't saying much. BLO is easier to apply than real tung oil and cures quite a bit faster. But neither makes a good oil finish. If you want an in-the-wood oil finish--and it makes good sense for things that need "casual dress"--the way to go is with an oil/varnish mix not any of the pure oils.
I have followed this thread and finally watched the video. I can see absolutely no benefit to this over a usual non-poly wipe on varnish. Or if someone wants to do an initial oil-varnish-thinner mix and then finish with wipe on.
It seems to me he is trying to make wipe on finishing "mysterious". Just my opinion. And continuing with that amount of oil for multiple coats is just unnecessary.Gretchen
It should make no difference what oil based varnish you use. He is using an alkyd resin/linseed oil varnish. Alkyd resin varnishes produce the least amber tone. His home brew will work with phenolic resin/tung oil varnishes like Waterlox or poly resin/linseed oil varnish like Minwax. But, of course, you will end up with a nicer looking finish if you use a non-poly varnish.
A couple of comment about his "hot rod" varnish. It's essentially an oil/varnish mixture. The high amount of real, pure tung oil he uses--do not use a faux "Tung Oil Finish"--will make the finish very soft and flexible. It will therefore have somewhat reduced durability. Contrary to what Mr. Johnson says, tung oil will not add any additional water resistance. Tung oil is slightly more water resistant than linseed oil but neither are significantly water resistant materials. In fact, the more oil added to varnish, the less water resistant it becomes. Contrary to what many think, marine spar varnishes are not more water resistant than standard interior varnishes. Marine varnishes are made with additional oil to make them more flexible so they remain adhered as the wood underneath expands/contracts or otherwise moves when exposed to marine conditions. Adding oil reduces the water resistance however. So if water resistance is high on your list of "wants" in a finish, use standard interior short oil varnish.
Let me also say, that the above comments do not mean that the "hot rod" varnish is in any way deficient as a finish. We sometimes go way overboard in requiring "durability" when appearance should be the most important factor on most projects. Almost any finish is "durable" enough for most furniture projects as long as the item will be taken care of. Like any wiping varnish finish, it is simple and will be quite foolproof.
Thanks Howie. I don't use a great deal of varnish but its nice for some things. When I use the varnish, its usually to protect it from abuse you would imagine is more than shellac can handle. Its not often in my view. Still, I like to keep the varnish method in my skill bag.
Like I said earlier, I have thinned the Waterlox a bit with Naptha and put some japan drier in the mix and I don't have to wait a week to get with powder when I rub with steel wool or scotch brite pads. It seems to work out pretty well but I'm curious about some other techniques.
If I get to using this I'll post a comment. As I write this reply I am finishing out a walnut piece with some buttonlac(a little dark) and it is really nice.
later
dan
I'm a strong advocate of Waterlox but never added drier to it. What's the recipe?
Like forestgirl, I looked into what's available about tung, as Johnson's idea about adding tung makes no good sense with what I remember (I forget a lot). Looks like he interprets "waterproofing" with tung, as commonly mentioned, literally and not as it actually performs. It is not "waterproof" but it repells water, it is not "impermeable" but hydrophobic. Adding a hardening oil coat serves as a vapor barrier which slows the absorption and/or loss of moisture, nevers waterproofs. The list of "drying" oils (more correctly called hardening, oils as the process forming the semi-durable film involves polymerization but evaporation is only from the by-products of polymerization) includes in order of hardness, linseed, tung, walnut, safflower, poppy, soy, sunflower. Only the first 3 produce a weak moisture barrier at best (other clear topcoats produce a better moisture barrier). Besides the metal salt mentioned, manganese salts also act as a drying agent for tung as does some phenols (phenols in an acid environment serve as a cross linking agent to provide faster and better polymerization, more of this available at the Journal of Applied Polymer Science for anyone to read). The oxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids in hardening oils with atmospheric oxygen forms long chain molecules (plymerizes) to form a solid film with cross-link bonds to other molecules. If the polymerized film is not damaged, water spilled over will be repelled momentarily, not absorbed immediately (at which linseed, tung and walnut can do and tung is marginally better). Pure tung penetrates wood poorly, diluting it 50% with a solvent improves penetration (diluting linseed 50% also improves penetration and that's what some brands of linseed recommend on the can).
To make wood waterproof with tung is possible. It must be greenwood and using non-catalized tung (cross-linking is started before the product is sold so drying is faster). The tung oil is heated to 350 F and the wood is submerged in it (I can see myself dunking a table made of greenwood in it, ja, ja). The wood is removed, excess oil dry, and wait 3 +month for it to dry. What happens is that the heated oil causes water in the wood cells to be expelled, the lignin in the wood hardens forming linoxyn, during cooling, the oil is driven into the wood cells replacing the water and finally the starches and sugars in the wood cells become stable in a new low-moisture environment. This IS really a waterproof wood produced by tung oil.
Edited 4/9/2008 2:01 am ET by woodshaves
Well-that about sums it up on tung oil.. oil for that matter. I'll be leaving the small jar of BLO on the shelf for lubricating the rubber for applying shellac.
I have wondered about the merits of oil only finishes over the years?? Doesn't make much sense to me.
thanks for the info
I'm no expert but I think that pure tung oil gives a nice warmth and adds to the patina of a wood. It also is an easy and renewable/repairable finish (good for us amateurs in finishing!)
As for water proofing I'm not sure, but I do know that a piece of beach that I applied three coats of (heated) pure tung oil to mixed 50/50 with mineral spirits was good to go after less than a week of drying (albeit in a sunny spot).
I under took this experiment in order to test different finishes on different species of wood!
So far the beach with the tung oil repelled water! personally I'm not planning on submerging any pieces of furniture in the near future but I did want to see how tung might compare with an outdoor garden furniture oil (polymerized/dried with metallic salts?)
These are just my immediate findings which may or may not hold any water...ha ha ha!!!
ChaimMake your own mistakes not someone elses, this is a good way to be original !
Woodshaves,Where are you getting your information that any metallic driers accelerate the polymerization of tung oil? Do you have any actual references or direct experience?I see advice similar to yours, and Forestgirl's all the time about specific metal catalysts to be used with tung oil. But as far as I can tell, it's a case of misinformation just getting repeated and embellished.Tung oil polymerization is accelerated by heat, not metal catalysts. There are no tung oil suppliers who add metal "driers" to their product. But they do offer heat treated products, of various degrees of "partial polymerization."Rich
forestgirl,Please see above message to woodshaves.Rich
The information is at the Journal I mentioned, look for the Journal and the topic. There is a series of article on the topic dealing with polymerization of tung. From the phenols, look like 3-methyl phenol is the most effective.
woodshaves,It's polite to actually provide a link, rather than tell others to re-do the research one has already done.First, I missed the journal name in your hard to read run-on posting.Then, a Google search for Journal of Applied Polymer Science results in many sites related to that journal but not the journal itself.Logging onto the Wiley Interscience site and doing a search for tung polymerization results in 60 articles of dense, highly technical abstracts only. Membership is required for the actual articles.Would you care to actually post a link to the information you referenced, rather than be so inscrutable?
By simply typing cobalt as a metallic drier for tung at the net, the information is there. It was a long search to find reliable sites and scientific literature, I'm not saving those sites, but as I can see is of no help. It is of no help because 90% of the scientific literature gives the abstract that is a simplified summary. Those able to understand chemistry will be able to get it from the abstract, the main article is more complex, so not understanding the simple version will not help with the full article. I do have access to the scientific literature, but to mail a copy of a complex article will not help (there are copyrights and reproduction at the net may have legal consequences). I consider this my search for what is factual, it is for my own education and for those able to do what I did, but will NOT ask anyone to accept or understand.
woodshaves,The hallmark of understanding anything is being able to explain the concept in ways that others will understand. Saying the idea is too complex to explain is the clearest indication that you have no idea what you're talking about. You have added nothing to understanding catalyzation of the polymerization of tung oil. Your referral to the journal you mentioned was a wild goose chase.I can't find anything in my searches of the Web or anywhere else describing cobalt or any other metal as a tung oil polymerization aid. And as far as I can, neither have suppliers of tung oil as a treatment/finish for wood.You have simply spouted nonsense, using the words tung oil and cobalt in the same sentence, implying understanding of some mysterious process which doesn't exist. Rich
Rich
Here is one link to a thesis that pretty strongly suggests that cobalt does act as a drier for tung oil. It's chapter 3 details comparisons between drying of linseed and tung oils based on both being catalyzed with cobalt driers. That falls a bit short of a direct statement but this was a serious academic paper that would have been laughed at if catalyzing tung in that way was not meaningful.
http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200510790.pdf
But just adding an drier that is chemically effective may not make a practical drier. For example, cobalt is spoken of as a surface drier. Tung oil, even without the catalyst tends to cure first on the surface, creating a film that slows oxidation of the materiual underneath, possibly a reason why tung is so finicky. If cobalt accentuates that surface cure effect, there may need to be an addition of a secondary drier that promotes through drying. Apparently lead was good at that--but obviously not viable now. It also seems from a bit or two I picked up while browsing that the mechanism of how secondary driers work isn't fully understood. If so that could be a contributing factor to explaining why otherwise pure tung oil is not market with driers for a fast dry product.
Steve,Thanks, um, I think.Now that was an easy read! Yeah, right!I'm sure glad I don't have to take a test!Conjugated and non-conjugated double bonds, oxidation process, free radicals.I really have no idea what the conclusion is about catalyzing unsaturated fatty acids with Cobalt, Co(II)-2-
ethylhexanoate (Co-EH) *phew*Except that it seems mostly an academic exercise without much practical application.What do I know. I'm just some dumb woodworker who likes the excretions lac beetles ooze out their hind ends better than the stuff nut gatherers squeeze out of seeds that fall off trees.So woodshaves, you are vindicated, through no effort on your part, and no more illuminating. Don't buy any stock in Cobalt driers based on expectations of use with tung oil, though
So, the bottom line for us non-chemists is until someone other than Roland Johnson actually tries the mixture, we really won't know if it is satisfactory or not.
It was nice light reading, sure. Actually, the point is, I think, that the guy is trying to show that there are alternatives to the cobalt driers since there are apparently some increasing health or environmental concerns about the use of cobalt driers. That could influence regulators, and manufacturers. By the way, I think I remember that Cobalt Ethylhexonanoate is on the MSDS for the KleanStrip Japan Drier. The thing that impressed me is that there are already a pretty healthy list of journal articles deriving from this thesis. I pretty much had to fight to get one out of my dissertation.
Ignore me and you will be happy. It is not possible for me to explain here a complex reaction to you not having the extensive backgrownd it requires. If after paint exposure somewhat develops leg cramps, a rash, itching, excessive perspiration, rapid heartbeat, intermitent low-grade fevers, irritability, personality change, insomnia, headaches, hypertension, swelling, redness and peeling of hands, feet and nose, chest muscle and legs weakness, nerve dysfunction in the lower extremities, it tells you nothing, you have no clue. It tells me that it is only one metal capable of doing it AND that it is added at a maximum concentration of 300 ppm for interior paint and maximum of 2000 ppm for exterior paint, it is not on the paint lable for you to read so I must assume you will not accept is there. I will not be able to explain a person with your knowledge or give you the background information to understand this. Simply ignore me, this is a democracy, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and some opinions are less correct than others.
You don't have to be a chemist to understand that your most recent post is a complete non-sequitur to the post to which it refers. The issue at hand hasn't been biological effects of particular materials, but the effects of cobalt and other driers on tung oil polymerization.
It's not an obvious matter. Otherwise, why is it that there are no otherwise-pure tung oil products that encorporate such driers on the marketplace.
When someone says they won't try to explain something because others won't understand is a rather shallow cop out. True experts do know how to explain the essence of their subjects to the great unwashed, even without being condesending. There is no knowledge so esoteric that "because I said so" is a satisfactory answer. Sure there are nuances that require mathematics or specialist knowledge but that's not often part of the essence of the ideas.
It's like Peter Lynch used to say, "If you're prepared to invest in a company, then you ought to be able to explain why in simple language that a fifth grader could understand, and quickly enough so that fifth grader won't get bored." from his book Beating the Street. Lynch was the legendarily successful portfolio manager of the Fidelity Magellan Fund.
There you got it, I'm a very, very bad teacher. I do not want to be one, I do not pretend to be one. When there is a suggestion/comment as how to accomplish a finishing task, I try to find a way to do more research on it, whenever possible, if it is pertinent to me or I try to test it if the need comes. As you do not know if I have the expertise, I consider the same for you or anyone posting. I'm expecting to be treated the same (and since I'm a bad teacher, the source of the information may or may not be provided, it does not represent superior knowledge or knowledge at all, and I'm not asking anyone to follow it). My comment on that prior post is intended to make others think about what is added to topcoats that is not included in the formulas (for us to know), it may be tung, linseed, varnish or any other. This out of sequence comment has been reported years ago and keeps happening (original report from the CDC in Atlanta at MMWR March 02, 1990/ 39(8); pages 125-126). The follow-up to that is a manufacturer little secret, such type of paint is designed to "powder-off" not to "flake-off", this represents continuos exposure and toxicity (not all paints are safe when dry !). But again, this is indirectly related to tung, even that another drier may have the same effects if added to tung and we are not told.
Tung is one of the hardening oils that does form a film very predictably when exposed to oxygen and there is no need to add driers, but we do not know exactly what the manufacturer added if the law does not require to disclose it.
And yes, I'm woodshaves the bad, bad teacher.
I used to have an engineering professor who was incapable of saying "I don't know". He'd babble on at length on any topic, stringing together complex-sounding terms and phrases. Every so often, someone would call him on it, and he'd respond with...more complex-sounding terms and phrases. Ironically, the guy who couldn't say "I don't know" wound up being known best for what he didn't know.Pete
If someone who had never seen a tree asked you how Maloof makes those beautiful chairs, how would you explain? "I don't know" is certainly true to a reasonable extent, even if you can make chairs of similar structure and beauty. "He uses a bandsaw" is a partial answer. Or "it's complicated, and you have shown no inclination to listen to the part of the answer I do know" might be an apt, though rude, answer. It can be a lot of work to explain.Curing of oil finishes has a lot of steps, and if you demand sufficiently detailed understanding of each step, you could probably safely say that nobody understands it. Initially, unsaturated oil reacts with oxygen to make hydroperoxides. This reaction depends on oxygen, heat and/or light, and the type and concentration of unsaturated groups. Oxygen inhibits polymerization by reacting with free radicals that could cause polymerization, but in doing so forms peroxides that can inititiate polymerization. Subsequently the hydroperoxides break down to form free radicals that cause unsaturated parts of the oil to polymerize. Various metal ions (dryers) can facilitate all of these steps. The significance of the 2-ethylhexanoate is just that most metal salts will not dissolve in oil, and these will. Formation of peroxides speeds up reaction by forming initiators, and slows it down by consuming polymerizable groups. How much of each happens will affect properties of the film.The paper cited above looks at first glance to have compared the way hydroperoxides are formed from two types of oils, linseed and tung, and found them different. The conjugated alkenes of tung oil are much easier to polymerize than the mostly unconjugated alkenes of the linseed oil. This leads to the differences.I've provided a very simple overview of what the questions would be in comparing how various dryers affect oil cure. I'm afraid I agree that it's not a subject that is easily described in a sentence or two, even if one understands it in detail. While I consider myself very capable of understanding it, I have not looked up the details, so I do not understand it well. But I have no reason to believe that woodshaves does not. He sounds as if he could. Some things really are complicated.
What did you say? I watched the video and expressed the opinion that he has a finish, but what does it add to the plethora of finishes available. My opinion is that it is an old finish of long oil/varnish that he is trying to make "new".
There is no need for "driers". It is a wiping varnish that will dry in an hour if you have some mineral spirits in there. "Driers" in this are the BIG red herring here. They are just not needed. I submit that dear Roland is trying to make his "finish" a new Sam Maloof. Believe me guys and gals, every one of us can come up with a "finish".Gretchen
I think its really worse than that. It's not a long oil varnish that he is creating, it's a oil/varnish mix, differing from watco only in minor degrees except for using a lot less thinner. But without the driers it's likely to be more than just soft, it's likely to be gummy. The driers do heat it up so it dries to a harder finish than the mix would imply. My concern is that it will experience the long term effects of the excess brittleness that excessive amounts of driers can bring about. Of, course that's just a guess on my part, since clearly the chemistry is complex.
But I absolutely agree there is no reason for trying to invent this modification. There are plenty of good wiping varnishes that are likely to be more moisture resistant and that dry plenty fast.
I pretty much hate that it is even given credence by the magazine by being published and a video. Sort of like an infomercial. We just don't need to add to confusion.Gretchen
Sorry, my long post was responding to something far from the original topic. But there are a lot of finishes that differ in minor ways from one another that might be useful, or not, to different people. Adding driers may not be needed, but if you add tung oil to your finish, it will take a lot longer to cure than the time needed for mineral spirits to evaporate. If yours cures very quickly, it's presumably because of driers in the alkyd varnish already.(Summary of my earlier post: in response to a statement that if one really understands something, one ought to be able to exlain it succinctly to anyone without any background, I said "not neccesarily" in an extremely long-winded way.)
I'm not the one advocating using this finish in any way. Varnish thinned with mineral spirits works just fine, and if you want it to dry faster, use naphtha. It is as close to a foolproof finish as it can get and it is a beautiful "in the wood" finish if done with non-poly. Pay attention to what Steve said about the possibility of the finish failing or at the very least turning gummy.
Who is Roland Johnson that he commands all this "respect" for a pretty suspect finish?Gretchen
Ok, who is Roland Johnson that he commands such respect? Well I'm the guy who has been using this finish for various projects for quite a few years. The advantage of the tung oil in the mix is that it helps it flow out nicer, it gives the finish some resiliency and doesn't become brittle. Tung oil, however, doesn't dry quickly so the Japan drier helps it fire off quickly. I find that using Turpentine keeps the finish quick-drying and that using mineral spirits slows the drying. The tung oil may not add a lot of water resistance but just the fact that the cured finish isn't brittle and won't fracture and let loose around a scratch will provide a better chance of water not penetrating the finish; the essence of a spar varnish. I'm not a chemist, so I can't give you an analysis of how the chemical reactions occur, I simply know it works; it's durable, it's easy to mix, it flows out nicely, it dries quickly, it sands easily, it doesn't get gummy, it doesn't darken like linseed oil, and after a few days of curing it buffs out to a nice luster. There is an error in the mixture in the article; the correct mix is 10-10-2 (or 5-5-1), not 5-5-2 like the recipe card said. I hope this answers some questions or concerns. My basic reply is that it works. Give it a try, you might like it.Roland Johnson
I wish to thank you for you response. I was becoming very confused from the comments made in the other "knots."
Shinywood, you're welcome. Roland
Thank you. I guess I get the same thing wiping on non-poly spar varnish--for about the last 40 years. ;o)Gretchen
Hello Gretchen,
Yes, I suppose my finish would work similar to a spar that is thinned for a wiping varnish, but I bet my formula dries a lot faster.
Roland
Huh?
Why ask me? I have nothing to do with any of this other than getting testy about some weak info regarding tung oil (tongue oil?) and catalysts. I have very little use for oil "finishes" other than linseed's ability to develop the color of some tropical hardwoods.
I use CAB Acrylic lacquer mostly, shellac, a little (real) varnish when necessary.
woops. thought you might have stumbled on some info on tongue oil.
adios
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled