Dear All,
In my searching the internet for information on fuming cherry, I came across
this document,
http://www.bf.uni-lj.si/les/pohistvo/Files/reproduction%20of%20patina%20-%20print.doc
(you don't need a password to read it, just hit enter a few times when asked
for the password)
It is a little more technical than I am used to. Any chemists here care to
comment on the document?
Thanks,
David.
Every neighbourhood has one, in mine, I'm him.
Remove the "splinter" from my email address to email me.
Newbies, please read this newsgroups FAQ.
rec.ww FAQ http://www.robson.org/woodfaq/
Archives http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Crowbar FAQ http://www.klownhammer.org/crowbar
Heck, I don't undertsand it all but UI do know you don't use household
ammonia-use drafting/blueprint developing ammonia.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:12:33 GMT, "Mike in Mystic"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi David,
>
>This is a very interesting article, especially since I'm an analytical
>chemist and so mixing woodworking and chemistry is always a good thing, IMO.
>
>A few key points that I would point to as the take-home messages from the
>article:
>
>1) Referring to table 1, concentrate on the delta E column. The larger the
>value, the larger the color change that the particular process had on the
>wood. As you can see from the table, ammonia fuming had the most dramatic
>effects, and did so in a much shorter time frame than the other methods. As
>you can see, ethanolamine was at best able to only color the wood less than
>one third as much as ammonia after 16 hours. The UV irradiation was about
>half as much (after 30 hours, compared to ammonia at 16 hours). If you are
>considering an alternative to ammonia, therefore, it seems UV irradiation is
>perhaps a better choice than ethanolamine.
>
>2) Referring to table 3, the data here deal with the effects of various
>finish coatings on wood color. The authors don't explain very clearly if
>the delta E values related to the patinated cherry are cumulative or
>additional changes after the patination. From the text, it seems to be
>cumulative, but this is a key point for interpretation. At any rate, I find
>it interesting that the color changes associated with putting oil or
>oil/varnish on the cherry approach the same as you get from the ethanolamine
>fuming. This begs the question, why bother with the ethanolamine fuming at
>all? Of course, this color change is still much less dramatic as that
>obtained from ammonia fuming.
>
>3) The remaining figures and tables for the most part deal with an attempt
>to explain the possible mechanism of the ethanolamine reaction. In my
>scientific opinion, these attempts are not very comprehensive or convincing
>at all. The FT-IR data is extremely weak in determining a reaction
>mechanism for the color change, yet the authors seem to draw a strong
>conclusion from this result and in their conclusion actually state that
>their data is virtually conclusive. I can guarantee you that further study
>would be required to hold muster in a scientific audience. Even more
>interestingly, to me anyway, is the fact that they identify the lack of
>chemical evidence from their UV irradiated samples (at least from the IR
>data), yet these samples had equivalent or greater color changes to the
>ethanolamine treated samples. They sort of hand-wave this away and refer to
>previous studies, but don't really give satisfactory evidence as to why
>their samples don't agree with those other data. Finally, the EPR
>experiment was quite a stretch (and the authors fully acknowledge this) as
>to discussing a free radical mechanism for the oxidation reaction in the
>wood. Using this experiment was actually pretty creative, although their
>data was far from actually giving any evidence for their speculations.
>
>Ok, all of this is pretty technical, I'll admit. For the woodworker, I'd
>say that you are still going to do one of a few things if you want to try to
>artificially age wood (specifically cherry, in this case).
>
>1) Continue to use ammonia fuming. This report gave ample evidence that if
>you want dramatic and rapid color changes that ammonia is by far the most
>effective way to go.
>
>2) Use UV irradiation. If you are dead set against using ammonia, then
>this report showed UV irradiation will give rise to color changes, albeit at
>much longer exposure times than with ammonia.
>
>3) Put an oil finish on the wood and let it age naturally (i.e. for about 6
>weeks). The initial color change from the oil was about equivalent to the
>ethanolamine and/or UV irradiation, and then a further color change of up to
>a delta E of 6 was seen after 42 days (figure 4). This is beginning to
>approach the results of the ammonia fuming process.
>
>So, there you have it. There are some pretty basic reasons that ammonia is
>so effective at this type of oxidative process. When you take the free
>ammonia and restrict it chemically by attaching to a carbon (forming a
>primary amine, as in ethanolamine), it is not surprising that the reactive
>properties associated with the free electrons on the nitrogen atom become
>somewhat reduced. In other words, the reason that ammonia is so corrosive
>and unpleasant to work with are the same reasons it is good at fuming wood
>and if you remove those unpleasant properties you will also reduce the
>effectiveness at the wood treatment process.
>
>Not sure if this makes any sense, but I gave it a shot.
>
>Mike
Hi David,
We used lots of it when we made weed killers that contained 2,4-D and
the like. Are there any pesticide manufactures in London? I worked in a
pesticide plant in Cambridge and we had a competitor in Brantford. Good
Luck, JG
"David F. Eisan" wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Does anyone here know what "Ethanolamine" is and where to get it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David.
>
> Every neighbourhood has one, in mine, I'm him.
>
> Remove the "splinter" from my email address to email me.
>
> Newbies, please read this newsgroups FAQ.
>
> rec.ww FAQ http://www.robson.org/woodfaq/
> Archives http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
> Crowbar FAQ http://www.klownhammer.org/crowbar
http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/ET/ethanolamine.html
Seems some pretty stuff.
http://www.neis.com/chemnames/ethanolamine
Bet you a buck (US or Canadian) it takes a license.
"David F. Eisan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dear All,
>
> Does anyone here know what "Ethanolamine" is and where to get it?
Another option, is to wash the cherry with a tannic solution before doing
the fuming process.
--
There is only one period and no underscores in the real email address.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
In news:Y8Rnb.6441$P%[email protected],
Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S."
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> It's also used as a solvent in dry cleaning so you may want to try a
>> cleaner in Chinatown for that.
>
> You sure about that? Or are you perhaps confusing ethanolamine with
> tricholoroethylene? I would think the unpleasant odor of ethanolamine
> would
> preclude its use in cleaning clothing.
Did you read the document he linked?
Hi David,
This is a very interesting article, especially since I'm an analytical
chemist and so mixing woodworking and chemistry is always a good thing, IMO.
A few key points that I would point to as the take-home messages from the
article:
1) Referring to table 1, concentrate on the delta E column. The larger the
value, the larger the color change that the particular process had on the
wood. As you can see from the table, ammonia fuming had the most dramatic
effects, and did so in a much shorter time frame than the other methods. As
you can see, ethanolamine was at best able to only color the wood less than
one third as much as ammonia after 16 hours. The UV irradiation was about
half as much (after 30 hours, compared to ammonia at 16 hours). If you are
considering an alternative to ammonia, therefore, it seems UV irradiation is
perhaps a better choice than ethanolamine.
2) Referring to table 3, the data here deal with the effects of various
finish coatings on wood color. The authors don't explain very clearly if
the delta E values related to the patinated cherry are cumulative or
additional changes after the patination. From the text, it seems to be
cumulative, but this is a key point for interpretation. At any rate, I find
it interesting that the color changes associated with putting oil or
oil/varnish on the cherry approach the same as you get from the ethanolamine
fuming. This begs the question, why bother with the ethanolamine fuming at
all? Of course, this color change is still much less dramatic as that
obtained from ammonia fuming.
3) The remaining figures and tables for the most part deal with an attempt
to explain the possible mechanism of the ethanolamine reaction. In my
scientific opinion, these attempts are not very comprehensive or convincing
at all. The FT-IR data is extremely weak in determining a reaction
mechanism for the color change, yet the authors seem to draw a strong
conclusion from this result and in their conclusion actually state that
their data is virtually conclusive. I can guarantee you that further study
would be required to hold muster in a scientific audience. Even more
interestingly, to me anyway, is the fact that they identify the lack of
chemical evidence from their UV irradiated samples (at least from the IR
data), yet these samples had equivalent or greater color changes to the
ethanolamine treated samples. They sort of hand-wave this away and refer to
previous studies, but don't really give satisfactory evidence as to why
their samples don't agree with those other data. Finally, the EPR
experiment was quite a stretch (and the authors fully acknowledge this) as
to discussing a free radical mechanism for the oxidation reaction in the
wood. Using this experiment was actually pretty creative, although their
data was far from actually giving any evidence for their speculations.
Ok, all of this is pretty technical, I'll admit. For the woodworker, I'd
say that you are still going to do one of a few things if you want to try to
artificially age wood (specifically cherry, in this case).
1) Continue to use ammonia fuming. This report gave ample evidence that if
you want dramatic and rapid color changes that ammonia is by far the most
effective way to go.
2) Use UV irradiation. If you are dead set against using ammonia, then
this report showed UV irradiation will give rise to color changes, albeit at
much longer exposure times than with ammonia.
3) Put an oil finish on the wood and let it age naturally (i.e. for about 6
weeks). The initial color change from the oil was about equivalent to the
ethanolamine and/or UV irradiation, and then a further color change of up to
a delta E of 6 was seen after 42 days (figure 4). This is beginning to
approach the results of the ammonia fuming process.
So, there you have it. There are some pretty basic reasons that ammonia is
so effective at this type of oxidative process. When you take the free
ammonia and restrict it chemically by attaching to a carbon (forming a
primary amine, as in ethanolamine), it is not surprising that the reactive
properties associated with the free electrons on the nitrogen atom become
somewhat reduced. In other words, the reason that ammonia is so corrosive
and unpleasant to work with are the same reasons it is good at fuming wood
and if you remove those unpleasant properties you will also reduce the
effectiveness at the wood treatment process.
Not sure if this makes any sense, but I gave it a shot.
Mike
--
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
"David F. Eisan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dear All,
>
> In my searching the internet for information on fuming cherry, I came
across
> this document,
>
>
http://www.bf.uni-lj.si/les/pohistvo/Files/reproduction%20of%20patina%20-%20
print.doc
>
> (you don't need a password to read it, just hit enter a few times when
asked
> for the password)
>
> It is a little more technical than I am used to. Any chemists here care to
> comment on the document?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David.
>
> Every neighbourhood has one, in mine, I'm him.
>
> Remove the "splinter" from my email address to email me.
>
> Newbies, please read this newsgroups FAQ.
>
> rec.ww FAQ http://www.robson.org/woodfaq/
> Archives http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
> Crowbar FAQ http://www.klownhammer.org/crowbar
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:57:42 GMT, [email protected] ()
>wrote:
>
>>>When did anyone last see a blueprint machien that used ammonia ?
>>
>>Since you ask, "Three weeks ago." <grin>
>
>Where was it ? Architect / engineering ? I'm just surprised anyone
>is still using these things.
>
repro service. it's still one of the most cost-efficient methods for
turning out "copies" on paper that's heavy enough to stand up on the
construction site.
In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>David,
>
>It's also used as a solvent in dry cleaning so you may want to try a cleaner
>in Chinatown for that.
You sure about that? Or are you perhaps confusing ethanolamine with
tricholoroethylene? I would think the unpleasant odor of ethanolamine would
preclude its use in cleaning clothing.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:22:16 -0600, Lawrence A. Ramsey
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Heck, I don't undertsand it all but UI do know you don't use household
>ammonia-use drafting/blueprint developing ammonia.
When did anyone last see a blueprint machien that used ammonia ?
25% ammonia is perfectly adequate for fuming wood. You can buy this
as a strong domestic cleaner from most hardware stores. So long as
it's sold as "ammonia" rather than "lemon-scented window-gleam with
added ammonia" then it'll probably be concentrated enough.
You may also see "880" ammonia, and some people might even have access
to anhydrous ammonia. You shouldn't use either. .880 is unpleasant,
anhydrous will kill you.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
"Lawrence A. Ramsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Heck, I don't undertsand it all but UI do know you don't use household
> ammonia-use drafting/blueprint developing ammonia.
>
AFAIK, the only main difference is the concentration. The industrial
strength ammonia is basically just more pure, so of course it's more potent.
Household ammonia-containing cleaners are likely to have many other
components, which probably aren't going to be good for wood fuming. But,
you're absolutely correct, you need to use pure ammonia, although I'm not
really sure what concentration range effects you might observe in practice.
Mike
Dear All,
Does anyone here know what "Ethanolamine" is and where to get it?
Thanks,
David.
Every neighbourhood has one, in mine, I'm him.
Remove the "splinter" from my email address to email me.
Newbies, please read this newsgroups FAQ.
rec.ww FAQ http://www.robson.org/woodfaq/
Archives http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Crowbar FAQ http://www.klownhammer.org/crowbar
David,
It's also used as a solvent in dry cleaning so you may want to try a cleaner
in Chinatown for that. FT-IR is Fourier Transform-Infrared - a computerized
tool for identifying types of chemical bonds in a molecule by producing an
infrared absorption. In other words, they graph the amount of infrared
light absorbed by a chemical to determine the chemical bond.
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/ethanolamine/recognition.html
Bob S.
"David F. Eisan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dear All,
>
> In my searching the internet for information on fuming cherry, I came
across
> this document,
>
>
http://www.bf.uni-lj.si/les/pohistvo/Files/reproduction%20of%20patina%20-%20print.doc
>
> (you don't need a password to read it, just hit enter a few times when
asked
> for the password)
>
> It is a little more technical than I am used to. Any chemists here care to
> comment on the document?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David.
>
> Every neighbourhood has one, in mine, I'm him.
>
> Remove the "splinter" from my email address to email me.
>
> Newbies, please read this newsgroups FAQ.
>
> rec.ww FAQ http://www.robson.org/woodfaq/
> Archives http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
> Crowbar FAQ http://www.klownhammer.org/crowbar
>
>
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:57:42 GMT, [email protected] ()
wrote:
>>When did anyone last see a blueprint machien that used ammonia ?
>
>Since you ask, "Three weeks ago." <grin>
Where was it ? Architect / engineering ? I'm just surprised anyone
is still using these things.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:47:08 +0000, David F. Eisan put fingers to keyboard
and said:
> Dear All,
>
> Does anyone here know what "Ethanolamine" is and where to get it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David.
According to m-w.com, Here's what it is...
a colorless liquid amino alcohol C2H7NO used especially as a solvent in
the synthesis of detergents and in gas purification
As to where to get it, beats me...
--
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
Bruce Bowler | On an evolutionary scale, it has yet to be proven
1.207.633.9600 | that intelligence has any survival value. - Arthur
[email protected] | C. Clarke
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:22:16 -0600, Lawrence A. Ramsey
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Heck, I don't undertsand it all but UI do know you don't use household
>>ammonia-use drafting/blueprint developing ammonia.
>
>When did anyone last see a blueprint machien that used ammonia ?
Since you ask, "Three weeks ago." <grin>