MMI Enterprises

All ya can really do is do yer homework for your area. As Alan pointed out it is not the same everywhere. Spent way too much time last year researching and trying to aquire the $450-$600 liability levels out here and it was a no go. Think it was explained to me that insurance commision plays some role in things on who can offer what and where. Those various low price companies back East stick to but a few states last I checked them out. We tossed this about last year over on ptstate:

Nice old world look ya got there Jon..good going!! ps- can ya share anything of rubbing methods, grits or sanders used?

Yes Cody..no one is talking about paining them..thanx for showing and discussing the method... you selling through your site or?

Yea it is...in firefox, thanx!... is also in Ie too but that's besides the point,lol.. was there something else? Pics I got up stink... Plan to only have finished work up rather than before/after on the mouseovers..

I guess that is one way of going about it..is it economical enough for you going route of having your pigment premixed in a binder/stain then adding it to your clear? Here's how I'de go about doing such: I'de just use straight pigment in 100% acrylic polymer or pigment in gycol-waterbase...aka-Universal or Cal Tint type pigment from Ace or Kelly Moore work pretty good and very cost effective. Here is an online source that comes up quikly on google: Resurface Solutions - Cal-Tint Colorants I approach mixing or making color samples same as a artist might do a fine art canvas painting. First I pick and make a small palette of colors with both the color and shade/tint of my canvas/surface in mind. If the canvas don't allow for where I want to go then I change it.(usually to white for to get brightness and a large contrast/difference between colors) Before ever touching the actual work surface I either get a scrap piece of it or duplicate it by way of using my palette. After doing such I can then procede with mixing measured amounts of color to my blank palette areas and then applying them to the test canvas to get to a color. Thinning is done in cups of water. After coming to initial color ratios and thinning amounts a coating of clear laqcuer, etc. over tests will show where you'll be when the pigment is used in a larger solventborne sealer batch. Having a portable color wheel computer can be handy. An artists mixing/color theory book from a crafts or art store is starting point though.

wish I coulda been there longer

In considering that ya got about twice as much binder in that solvent (seen the can btw and so figured as much) than a waterborne ya probably can go upto like 10%. I still wouldn't start much beyond 2-3% if'n I want to see through it. Those amounts can let ya do multiple layers of various colors and end result is always a stained look. ps- also... could be stressed that powdered dye pigments normally disolved in acetone are not stable enough to uv on exterior work... please clarify if ya can on which pigments yer using..

..now that's what I would like to see either the acidified luv or cider try and kill and remove..haha :)

It not a stain in what respect? It don't penetrate like a stain as the solids too high or the pigment is low to where it pretty much translucent...or? Some manu that use the term tinted sealer are refering to basically a slight coloring of usually a waterborne acrylic and it called stain base before coloring it. The base will dictate how much but 2% pigment about right as the binder needs to be able to tie it all together for integrity and for adhesion of subsequent coatings. Color amounts in wood stains go higher.. This product acrylic solventborne or waterborne? ..don't see it for sale on yer site.. ..btw, could be a false positive but my avg says you got virus on yer site.. ps- I would like to see a closeup pic of a scratch test on this product if that could be arranged.

Luv that design..and that is some fast work. Hoiw many guys?

What Scott and Thad says.... ..if yer well built and have good back. To stay on truck you need long enough hosing to reach around back. Are you going to use a chem tank, fivers, or what to apply chems? The more robust you go the more you will want to leave everything on truck.

The turps talk and the voc talk feels like deja vu... Suppliers tell me my area is low but down south is even lower and it is heading our way...

At this rate we'll be at $4.20 by 4-20 for a gal of unleaded. Might be cheaper to smoke...umm I mean burn something else in the gas tanks..

One I got coming up says to me I got to get up there via a ladder since there is no stairs to it..is a balcony. I might as well climb on in and use an angeled hand wand to clean the rails. Might stain or clean the low fascia from the little giant type step ladder though as this perticular balcony sits over a stairway coming off a main deck. Got to scratch yer head sometimes.

Being the tarps can go to such big sizes, fold up easy, have more body to them against the wind, etc. I likely to use them more than sheets or thin plastic sheeting. Sheets will be resereved for plants mainly.. I use a craftsman hand stapler to put up the tarps for arbour/pergola work and cardboard shields for almost all low work. Sometimes I use a size of cardboard that fits perfectly snug inside the 55 gal trash can liners so that they can be reused longer. They will leak product off though if you overspray onto them too much so got to be careful...Small fine areas though like around where fences or deck wood meet the house do well with tape and paper though. On SAFETY: ...everyone make sure to have a suitable metal firecan on board for disposal or storage of these materials as things will heat up and combust in confined space. Some water in bottom will add some humidity/safety to the situation too.. ..also make sure to sweep up any sawdust around yer work areas as they can combust shortly after getting sprayed with some stains..

You can hear what you want to hear Rod.. Fact is your context/use of 'tried and true' seemed limited to 'sanding grit' and I only chose to elaborate on it by useing the word 'all' and to make attempt to point out what seems fact to me. (see post #25...you were responding to Ricks statement of grit).. And that for sure is that there is always much exageration between the two different states of rough and sanded...(edit- sorry should say too much absorbtion exageration speak between grits.. see the test link below to see the use of 'tried and true' being a dismal failure...) Have no idea why you constantly try and twist what I say into that I am pushing for some big modern way of doing things. I goto 80-120 normally and don't believe I said or was pushing otherwise. And man if I am so radical and you so 'old school' what are you doing in pushing all the wet tech/one coat/ disregard old school ways of first oiling then sealing that you so eliquently just pointed out.. I don't at all get you sometimes. What do you mean in saying something about a premise for arguement when we verged from the main topic long ago?. We sure are radically different in how we interprit what some else is saying...lol :) How so?. I believe it makes it smoother #1 and makes it look better by making the color even and highlighting grain.. that is radically different?. Your view (or argue) is what? Recognize in respect to outdoor wood care (AND THIS THREAD) that I am really talking about the grit differences that we would actually choose from or end at. You know full well we are talking about differences in ending at 60 or 80 or maybe 100 or so and that my test thread I took liberty to go way higher for sake of the absorbtion claims/exagerations. What should this also mean or say to people?..does it also say the absorbtion differences are also marginal in respect to ending at 60 or 80 or 100? This was along the lines of my last post. If I am interprited as saying such then reinterprit and realize I simply applied roughsawn wood as a main cause for exageration of covergae or absorbtion differences. It's plain to see that once yer into sanded wood things are different. http://www.thegrimescene.com/forums/wood-cleaning-restoration-decks-fences-etc/12745-sanding-grit-stain-test-redwood.html .. but not so different. If you fail to see then perhaps you should feel the wood.. Saying anything above 80 is abit subjectve. Consider some would have it at 40 or 60..others at 120, others maybe more below 220. But hey what do you think them manu's relying on there when they say 60-80 is the highest?.. They know their product doesn't penetrate and they need to grip/bond to roughness. BUT that again, is a durability issue more related to top film forming coatings....We all know absorbtion is something different and my original posts in this thread was not about durability persay. Only when Ken fairly decided to elaborate more past my first post did we all start to go there... I for one am not limited to consider or discuss a topic such as absorbtion discretely. Some others just luv to throw wrenches and get into things of durability as the end all be all which is somewhat rediculous in a wood care world that caters to or even counts on remaintence staining ever couple/few years anyways.

Nahh..Kenny just likes to turn decks into trampolines by cleaning regular with straight vinegar...:lgbonk:

Yes ya may want to repaint for pr sake and perhaps in case there was no fair warning on your part BUT.... Devils advocate in me says there is entirely too much sheep baaahing going on here. This is not your fault that it happened but only yer fault that you didn't see it coming or gave disclaimer. A properly done 2 year old paint job will not just rinse off from 10 minute of housewash whether sunny side or shady side. It isn't even a thing of prep neither since you say no chip or flake. It is straight up inferior product not meant for exterior or extremely thin coating causing this problem and you are but the victim in an ugly course of events. There always has to be a common sense dialogue and understanding between parties and the customer in the act of letting you clean something with a known process.. needs to be allowance and willingness to take the understanding that stuff (coatings in this case) DOES NOT last forever. In the end it is their crappy product that they own that is either normal compared to everyone elses or it isn't..in this case it basically done and ready for new product. My dislaimer straight up puts the ball in customers court by their taking the responsability that THEIR surface can handle the active cleaning described. In your case it could have been that the customer paid you to apply a bleach/surfactant solution and to rinse their below average crappy surface and there is no issue....But back to reality.., if ya got no disclaimer, or didn't word job description correctly, or went into job without discussing possable outcomes yer gonna be painting a house to save face and rightly so and you own it. (the situation).. :)

Initial visual conclusions of firstly sanding and then staining a redwood fence board with Woodrich Stain and Seal(wc). Sanding: Board layout consists of 5 sections from left to right- rough sawn,600 grit,320grit,120 grit,60 grit. Sanding was done with orbital on lowest setting. The 4 sanding grits expectedly produced various feel and look. Sheen/glaze mainly upon the grain lines/formations increased as grit level increased and the higher grits of 320 and 600 showed sheen/glaze actually within the grain. Main thing of note is that half centimeter swirl pattern sanding marks can be seen in the 60 grit from almost 3 feet away and it's roughness makes the section darker at an angle or straight on view before staining compared to the other grits. SANDED-UNSTAINED: Left to right; rough sawn, 600,320,120,60 grits SANDED SHEEN: VIEW FROM RIGHT OF 60 GRIT: Stain application: Board was placed on an ever so slight tilt in order to log any running of the product. I used hypodermic without needle to lay a 10ml puddle to center of each test section. After about 3 minutes I spread each section out with an artist brush. STAINED: Should be said before going on that shading= darkening of color and tinting= brightening of color (color value) Rough sawn- Stained darker initially by far in its given placement area than anything sanded as it does not run prior to brushing-aka holds oils/pigments where it is put. The pigments shade (rather than tint) the grain lines and the splintering raised areas. Has its own uniqueness compared to all sanded sections. I would want to spray in order to get even coverage as the oils and pigments penetrate quiker into and hold onto one area and hence does not allow much spreading after very short time frame. I assume it would use more staining product with some application methods as is normally mentioned on product coverage rate infos. Some may think this section got better penetration and is of higher quality... but I view it similar to looking into a wet can of stain and it is more optical illusion than anything. All sections have same amount of stain in them and none absorbed more than another. Yea perhaps one could keep feeding one section more than another but who does that with a one coat product and why would we want to when all the pictures below show as dark enough.? ROUGH SAWN: --the next sections are in backwards order compared to the board layout..sorry-- 60 grit- Product oil/solvent ran and the amount that ran was same as 120 grit but more than 320 or 600 grit. Pigment and resin seemed to settle/dive a tad quiker than the other 3 grits to point of less solids available for spreading at about a 3 minute mark.There may have actally been just as much carrier as the other sections when I went to spread it but it didn't flow the goodies. Upon staining the visability of the sanding scratches decreased to about 1 foot. Color evenness is far less than the rough sawn or the other grits.The very minimal sheen/glaze imparted to the grain from sanding produced both shading and highlight tinting to the grain making for a very undesirable look compared to rough sawn or the other grits.In fact in the very center of the stain application it can be seen that the grain is tinted and but areas where I spread the product to the grain lines became shaded as in the rough sawn.While looking at the board at angle from over 6 feet away this section shows a fur/velvet/almost moldy look from the sanding. IMHO it is rather ugly/muddy compared to any other section. I did not expect the rough sawn to look so good innitially compared to this 60 grit. All the higher grits show as brighter which naturally means toward orange..could be the black of the pigment stays more to the surface via filtration, or the section is darker before staining than the others, or a combination.The very right edge black streaks should be ignored at some level as I didn't go deep enough.Staining lower section would have looked better judging by the unstained 'view from right' pic above. 60 GRIT: 120 grit- Frankly everything about this section is better than the 60 grit section and not so fickle. Product did run though about same as 60 grit. It has some color unevenness, and but spread/backbrushed better than the 60 grit.The increased sheen/glaze still presents a dual situation of some grain line areas showing both shade and tinting. At both close and long range this section does not present the fur/velvet look at either an angle or straight on. Color evenness/blotchyness is noticably better at angle but still presents a fair amount if viewing straight on. 120 GRIT: 320 grit- This grit still presents an ever so slight color unevenness viewed straight on but is very acceptable. The sheen/glaze level does away totally with shading to the grain (tints it) and does much to trick the eye into not seeing the slightly imperfect color distribution. At angle this section is wonderful and very similar to the 120 grit. 320 GRIT: 600 grit- This grit is interesting. Everything about this section is initially better than the lesser grits. Evenness is noticably better than the 320 grit but product spread about same. The tinted grain is just a hair brighter than the 320. The increased sheen/glaze from sanding apparently caused if anything an increase in surface tension to the product and ran less than everything but the rough sawn but not all that much different from the other grits really. In doing a hair dryer heat test to all the sections at about 30 minutes when visably dry and no surface wetness it could be seen that there is a direct open conduit for the product to travel in and out on the 600 and 320.. more so than the lower grits even though the higher grits are more glazed and would seem more closed off. The 600 seemed to come up at quiker rate and higher volume than the 320 as example.The pathway I assume is cleaner to traffic in cases of temperature changes. Immediately after heat was removed the wood cooled and acted as a sponge to absorb the product back in between the large grain which is btw less sheened. I don't necessarily believe the oils/solvents went deeper on the 120, 60, and rough sawn but that the lack of sheen allowed the evaporatives to evap away quiker during the 30 min of drying. In other words it may be that the sheen/glaze lets liquid through more readily than say an air or evaporation action. Whether product went deeper on one section compared to another remains to be seen if I rip the board. Honestly I don't expect to be able to see pigment depth differences upon cutting but perhaps the oils could be spotted. 600 GRIT: All sections were dry on surface before I heated with hair dryer to demonstrate the spongy nature of stain through high grit sanded areas. This pic of the 600 grit section is right after a first cooling..the stain sucked right back in: This pic is a 2nd quik reheating moments later. It demonstrates that what came out the first time did not dry off but rather went back in. Went back in fast compared to the initial application I might add. It's like once the initial surface tension is overcome by time or mechanical back brushing it is a free ride on in and out for the oil least in regards to heating and cooling anyway or until cured: My initial conclusion upon staining is that both rough spots/splinters and the thin unglazed grain lines(sugary sections) allow or promote pigment to attach to its surface and but the sanding/glazing of it does the opposite. The glazing of the grain line areas starting at or above 120 grit is a good thing if you want to highlight/tint the grain and it may actually prevent wear patterning from hand or foot traffic since it is already clear via such sanding prep and they are the peaks that stick up and first meet abrasive forces...for most part there is no thick top coating that will prevent wear compared to interior work that gets a good top coat poly, etc.. Purpousfully heat glazing of whole board on and within the grain would likely not be a good thing and limit decent penetration/absorbtion to the point of an unstained surface.The 600 grit did not do such on this softwood at all,.. it was perfect with plenty of darkness equal to that of the 320 and 120. On the 60 grit sanded section I have to contribute its overall darker look so far to the fact that its canvas is darker to begin with and not to idea of there being much if any absorbtion difference. Remember it also has a higher percentage of shaded grain compared to the tinted grain and such tricks the eye. In looking within the grain it is not far if at all different than the 600 level. No sections had enough sugars or heat burnishing inside the grain areas to cause an issue or hamper things. If anything the glaze on the higher grits acted as a control and even minded dispersant not all that different than a sanding sealer used on interior work. I think that different hardness or density of wood would mimmick the grit steps and resultant quiknesses of penetration or dispersion perhaps to the point of a 120 grit being equal to maybe even the 600 grit results or better.Temperature during application is likely to mimmick grit step is my feeling. A different product's quality/formula is even more likely to mimmick a grit step maybe even to a point of 3 grit steps. A junk product over a 120 gritted hardwood may equal that of a heat glaze situation allowing hardly anything in. The amount of product I used resulted in no readily seen surface coating or resin with any of the sections. Remember all sections got same amounts.The 600 feels best and looks best and but the 120 is almost borderline in feel for my tastes. Yes I can feel the difference even though the wood has a stain and sealer applied.For practical purposes of being able to spread/backbrush product following a spray application something above 60 would be best or give more time. If I can't be somewhere smoother and more even looking than the 60 grit due to labour, etc. than I would prefure to be under 60 to gain a more even velvet/fur/matte look. Back brushing would then likely be a non-factor too. If wood is even softer/less dense than this redwood that goal perhaps could be satisfied naturally and 60 would be perfect. I just know I don't want to be in the middle between finer finish and rough finish and need to be one way or the other of the 60 grit results found here..120-150 grit seems most likely grits to ensure keeping on the highside considering the multiple variables of wood hardness and product choices and maybe 40 grit to keep to the matte side of things..Unsure though that I would care for 40 though using my orbital. Maybe a 40 grit scratch pattern would be more tolerable with the belt sander going with the grain.The 60 grit scratch pattern was acceptable enough after staining with this product. I'll probably stick with 80 or better and hope for harder wood than this though as the 60 just doesn't look very good. I not suggesting everyone go out and do same cause if these little test sectons were blown up to large scale size of a deck I am sure things will look much more even then what I see. UPDATE: After half day dry time.. Rough sawn section looks pretty bad with way too much shading to the thin sugary grain lines. Again, compared to sanded, the grain presents as a 180 degree flip of what gets dark and what gets bright/tinted. Is trickery of sort as the grain is now no darker than other sections as it begins to dry and cure. (refer back to where I said it is an optical illusion of looking into wet can of stain or oil). If anything at angle from a half room away in bright light it looks the lightest of the 5 sections.Things could be different come daylight. The next section, the 600 grit section, looks the darkest most opaque at angle I assume due to its color evenness of the pigments. This applies in bright room light or darker light. In darker room both the tinted grain line and its adjacent hairline shade line of the 600 grain is well defined. Yes with fine wood work ther eis multiple lines to each grain line with some going bright(tinted) and its partner going darker (shaded).However, in viewing straight on in bright room light the 320 grit has gained serious ground on the 600 in both color evenness and overall darkness.. haha.. The 120 presents nothing special to note beyond it's fair amount of blotchyness and the 60 grit looks just as bad in any light or angle. So far the 600 takes more marks but the 320 may win in daylight. Final outcome is going to have to wait a couple weeks for things to finally settle but I'll snap a few straight on pics and edge view pics later on tomorrow.. Update 3/22/08: ..yup by daylight and some more drying things look much better and less differences betwen all the sanded sections..the 60grit might even be passable.. :)

Since this test was inspired by another thread that we basically walked all over it perhaps best to link to it for reference sake. It likely to go the way side and but it could be deemed usefull in future: http://www.thegrimescene.com/forums/wood-cleaning-restoration-decks-fences-etc/12697-how-would-you-handle.html#post125086

If anything can be gleaned directly through experience or a test is that once you step outside the terrain of 'rough sewn' all 'tried and true' does not necessarily apply no more... once various preps of cleaning or sanding or product makeup or wood species is thrown in it is not like the old days whatsoever. I urge all to be much much more open minded to both what could have been different in the old days or what the context was and what they were refuring to and how or where not apply same knowledge in todays world. For instance, I feel todays wood society has way exagerated the absorbtion and covergae rate differences of different levels of sanded wood and that such speak was meant originally to address rough sewn compared to ANY level of sanded wood. Rod I pretty much believe that your 'filter' idea is right on when we think about rough sawn wood more than anything. The very outter layer of rough sawn is so dry and porous that the oils seem to just go right on through and then the other goodies sit out there nice and dry to the touch... In the end the layer could be viewed as a trap or a holding mechanism similar to a crust allowing more chances of feeding more oils in whenever ya feel like it. It does however not equate directly to a fact that the main body of such wood can actually absorb (an act) or even hold more in the end. A sponge is a sponge is a sponge..and it only holds so much.. the dryer the sponge the better as it then can hold more. That outside rough sawn layer is a very dry sponge in some cases. In some case it probably thick enough to hold a gal per 50 feet of wood.. ya think? In that sense wood sanded beyond such dry area will hold less product but who does rough sawn deck wood?? Nobody.. so tell me how does yer coverage rates vary between using say 80 grit and 100 grit? I suspect you can not claim any difference. Not syaing you want to claim such but that it is an interesting hypothetical to me..

No argue...as we don't generally get 20 rainy day during what would be considered a work season. But if not mistaken I was under the impression that many guys back yer way do the week on week off routine of cleaning a bunch and then staining...For such folk doing such a schedule the numbers info for sure can apply. I don't really understand your use of 'empirical'..please explain if ya like..I just know that if it a big job and all I am doing that day is staining that I know I can do this or that amount of area per hour or day and the numbers don't lie for me. I've used sme products enough on various wood to know what they work out to. I feel it is not rocket science and I hope for goodness sake you would also have a good educated guestimate or ball park figure on what yer giving up if using one product over another. Could be quality your giving up or could be hard earned greenbacks. My post only touched really on the greenbacks..I mean anyone can feel welcome to address the end qualitiy issues of a product but they are not gonna be able to avoid the fact that everysecond they spraying a product it costs somebody figurable money. Far as being used on moist..umm er No comment..lol.. The 7-10 per week can fit various types of scheduling of cleaning then staining programs. Do I not hear Beth talking about letting things dry anyways with wet technology?. Gonna wait a couple day or few than might as well wait till next week is my feeling.. Doesn't mean yer not completing or competing at a 7-10 per wek worth of jobs completed, just stretching things out is all and same dollars made....umm err but nope ya may make more if useing a more economical product.. :)

Since some ya obviousely have some type of horse in a race here and I perhaps not following the finer detals of this thread I should ask Beth is this post directed to me or Dan or who?.. sorry am lost... My only point with the sanding thing is that different prep/grit can indeed affect a look that is often confused or termed as blotchyness and I posed to you or anyone else reading a possable solution. I support the cronology you present.. :)

You tell me is descriminating against one oil companny worth a shot?.. I already don't buy from the expensive gas providers so I can't possably make a difference..How about you? At current rates I almost have to assume many only buy from the expensive gas stations cause they use their gas or credit cards, or are as rich as all get out. Besides the high prices, what really erks me is the higher the gas prices in general the larger the difference between individual stations. ps- maybe admin can edit my spelling error in this threads title?..sorry, lol

If it $12 per gal to be able to afford getting at it then why are many contemplating doing it?. The guesstimate is like 400bil gal to be had via slant drilling all up through the Dakotas on our own land. That enough to go almost 100 years. What the name of that island they got with a bunch?.. The hypothisis has been that they were waiting till $100 a barrel on purpose to get into it. Well we are there so we should start hearing about it.. :) But Rich there is much talk/theory that oil is not so limited like we were once told. It is just the easier stuff is depleting. We've all heard it, the deep stuff is supposedly abiotic and doesn't come from organ decay of plants, dinos, planctin, etc when you go like 5 mi. down on the bottom of the sea floor. It supposedly something about carbon 13...but who has the real info?.. don't know, haven't checked that deep into it really..Unsure if sites have been proven to be inorganic or not but there is also some link to other astro bodies like Titan the consperacy crowd is trying to talk about....haha.. funy stuff