MMI Enterprises

No problem Rod..can do that..maybe I won't cut the board or maybe I do up another one same way but brush it all out. As I described though, wear is likely to show less on the sanded for some key reasons you perhaps have not had chance to read yet. it is long ..haha..but basically the finer finish equals inverse grain effects.

sanding may help.. :) http://www.thegrimescene.com/forums/wood-cleaning-restoration-decks-fences-etc/12745-sanding-grit-stain-test-redwood.html

You don't want linking out to external hosts?

Been trying to consolidate trips and it works some nights but others I am just too stretched out. Gonna have to tighten customers up closer to home and do more work at each location to beat this..Might get a small pressure washer unit and do without the trailer when I can on the day work. I feel some trades just won't be given as much leeway to increase prices as lowballer competition can tend to rule them. ...example would be that I ran into paint crew today doing a whole house at the $2k mark and I still hearing of idiots doing 10k of floor for a c-note.

Hey Chaz. do we asume yer money is in oil or gold..lol Need to put mine into shale oil or hydrogen..In fact I thinks I need to get to making my brownes gas hydrogen generator for my truck.. Even if it saves me a dime a gal... :)

Thanx Rick. I hear ya.. On that last part though you made no mention of grip persay but rather the aspect of getting it in. We got two different topics same time. How long of an absorbtion (quantity)seems logical to me when dealing with RS rather than how deep persay an absorbtion goes in as wouldn't it be fair to say most folk using it double coat and all is based on quantity. The more that gets trapped the longer it takes to evap or wash out. However, obviousley you have to have a blank air space within the fibers/cell structure in order for it to go in and so once they full they won't take no more. In that sense I would agree with you if you say depth equals a more lasting situation with a paraffinic. Can you confirm whether or not that an amount of rs needed to thouroughly saturate/finish a very thin fence board would not be enough to do a thicker board maybe say a 2x6 due to the end depth it could travel in on the thicker board?. I see it that the product would be dispersed more and hence not as protective or visually appealing. What I like to touch on with this is that when same lower amount of oil is trapped and/or prevented from going as deep (more compressed) then we can come to some success. In interior work the trapping is done on both sides of the laying of the pigments and oils. Not in sense of doing all sides but rather by way of first sealing the wood then staining/oiling then trapping it with resin. If I were into the labor involved in tripple coating that is what I would do with exterior wood. ... When I get to this test later today I'll include Rs and do it at a larger dose. The rs should make for a good example of glaze preventing absorbtion. I'll grid each grit section.

Interesting..not much in way of opinion on this. Is one problem with this that independant drivers go and pickup from the biggies and deliver it to the small chains or independant stations and we wouldn't know who would be safe to buy gas from?..

Well thank God all will be ok and nobody dead or disabled...

..seems confusion and jealousy is amuck eh Jeff and Jump? what's this wayne thing about anyways?..some dirty person competing is an important thing we are supposed to know something about or care about?. What gives Wayne, free world isn't it?..oop sorry,, I am interupting the insurance thread.. just somebody please pm me the details, thanx Jump, Walters is an insurance agent, find him via a google search if you need insurance...that answer yer question?

Can hardly find anything untrue there Rod and the filtration point is a good one. When you go back and read you can find that I don't at all disagree with color being darker on the 80 compared to higher. I fully expect that. We will see shortly though on whether 60,120,320,600, and rough cut actually absorb the color deeper and which shows off the grain and beauty of wood better. The test is already in progress and intitial pics taken while you were writing your disertation... haha. The test consists of a rough cut inside stored redwood fence board. (soft and full of extractives). Prep is with orbital. So far all the sanded sections show some level of sheen compared to the rough when held at angle to the light. The 60 shows the little orbital marks. The grain becomes more pronounced as the grit increases to 600. I can both feel and see the difference between all grits with 60 being horrible and the rough taking on its own uniqueness due to the texture. I'll consider suggestions for staining procedure but I plan to take woodrich stain and seal in measured eye dropper doses and simply flow it in puddle format. Maybe I'll wipe off or brush down after a few minutes to satisfy the craving of a darker outcome for the 'lower the grit the better' group and to show any differnces of grain quaility/displaying. I use the term to relate to everything outside the wood(the top coat film forming part) bonding to the peaks and valley's only. Others as well as yourself view it as fingers or holding on so I fail to see your point of there only being chemical bonding. Yea chemical bonding of the resins to theirselfs but all to often it directly applies to the resin grabbing the wood. My point was that if the resin is good and durable it isn't much issue as it is bonding to itself on into the wood. Don't know how else to explain it other then saying there is a difference as you seem to recognize. We aint that far apart really. Perhaps you hear me saying one thing and but I mean something entirely different in a utopian way. If I not said it already.. I don't like relying on top film and would rather get into the wood. Btw I am using woodrich as it is a combo type product and I already know stuff minus as much oil fail my point and goal/search in a do all product. Anyways..the pics show the various glaze as I expected and my goal is to see or not see if oil and pigment will absorb/penetrate past and then what it looks like. Top coat adhesion and its resin durability is a whole other matter and is partly why I said to Ken "Not entirely".. will post those pics tonight or tomorrow and stain tomorrow, then I'll either crack or rip board a bit later.. ps- I don't find it mute at all and is a key to what is being discussed. You have to first get in. Otherwise there is bound to be some failure. It's like you can't have both ways..you either gonna use penetrative oil or yer gonna be relying on grip/mechanical/or outside chemical bonding. Whereas mine discussion surrounding premature failure (smooth versus rough) relies totally on getting in maybe yers don't. In that is where yer right and I as well..as each product demands and has its limits.pss- I'll stand to critisize my own statement here as it is gonna be hard to find a dry enough piece of soft wood that is not gonna glaze. Statement applies more to hardwood furniture or gunstocks..Them sugars in the new wood or old woods are likely to indeed affect absorbtion as we go about applying, back brushing, and waiting for things to dry in or on. ..some may find that a total turn but not really.. with the right solvent and oils I seen plenty of darkness and oils given into both rough and smooth wood and that imply hasn't really waivered. Just that yes the glaze will affect things if it there and likely much less when dealing with products already setup good with penetrative qualities. .....Btw, Anyone here ever wipe their smooth glazed wood with spirits before they stain??.. :)

well that was 'long'..sorry bout that.. ps- also, lets ask Rick if he needs mechanical grip persay with his oils less than another. Would have to say yes is my opinion.

oops..looks like the costing $27.96 more per hour to use over Omax figuring I did in a recent Ptstate thread is perhaps out the window now. Biggest fence for me, to date. Bear in mind that amount was figured based around whole project of both the cleaning and staining hours and 150 per sq.ft. assumed usage for wtw by poster compared to 190 for omax that I reasoned....If the covergae rates are closer then of course it is not as big an amount but the price increase on the other hand would either make it a wash or take the difference higher. Gotta say the price figuring for me is a no brainer on what I will have to use more of this year. I suspect the price increases will for some reason be smaller the larger the supplier/manufacture is. ps- ok here is a breakdown/comparison of how different products may cost you profit: *Note this example may not reflect contractor or quantity pricing or accurate sales tax or shipping costs..Is just a comparison of what I believe I have to pay today as of 3/19/08* Product A- $40 , Product B- $24.39 = $15.61 difference cost per gal. Spraying at 600sq.ft per hour= 3 gal. at 200sq.ft. per gal coverage credited to either product $40x3=$120, $24.39x3=$73.17 $120-$73.17= $46.83 more per hour to use product A over product B ...The $15.61 face value per gal. price difference translates into so much more in terms of profit. 8 hour spray day is $374.64 Cleaning a week and then staining a weak works out to: 11 days x $374.64 = $4121.04 per mon. ..or $24726.24 per 6 month season ..translates into customer will have to pay if they want one to use a higher cost product. ..it also may translate into it being considered wise that manufactures get their best pricing figures known and updated regularly.

Welcome Joe..good luck

Guess the question could be whether you were explained when the fee was going to be due or if it already figured into your payment plan or whatever for the policy premium. You have to expect a fee..fortunatly it is a very reasonable fee for what they set you up with and keep you in. Fee for that is usually $250 on up. Not only do you have a supperior policy most likely involving some level of comprehensive coverage you also paying hardly a thing to get in to a good rate.. ps- John, I got to shake my head at that idea of never paying an agent. Think the difference is that maybe some been going through big agency's that make it appear they writing their own stuff and there no fees and but the fees are just masked in the manucia. Everyone pays fees in some fashion.

Rick, Yes very important to stress that. Out here for me it is the 7400 series. How long you see them lasting?

I pretty much stand by you with the heat glazing. More surface area contact equals quiker/more heat. Departure would be if doing slowly by hand or with slow equipment. The bottom line you mention of not using fine sandpaper has truth in it for sure as this application is pretty much a stain/paint removal situation. The last mention though about fineness affecting finishlife is not entirely true to me. My hope and goal with even the film formers is that the thicker resins/binders actually mix and penetrate at some level on in with the carrier solvents and thinner oils. In fact they do. It is not just the pigments that go in..the actual drying oils go in and harden. When going to a solid it is pretty much accepted that current formulations are gonna have to sit more on top to have chance at opaqueness. I can tell you from experience that indeed though you can come close to a solid look of not seeing the grain with all chems inside the wood just like with an rs type product. I used to finish gun stocks as example anywhere from nude/blonde all the way up to dark dark walnut to almost black with no surface coating at all. In fact ya purposely wipe or take any and all film back down to wood level just like cherrying out a fine auto until the low unsealed areas take no more. Only when ya want gloss do you really have to have a film. In the same way that an rs type product doesn't really need a top coat neither does an alkyd really(but itis the usual nature as they tend to be thicker andnot very parrafinic). I don't really care much for thinking about foot traffic wearing through a coating and exposing unstained wood as cause my main reasoning is that if the wood is wearing from traffic and exposing bare wood then the stain never really penetrated to begin with and I was using an inferior stain. Stain implies some level of depth/penetration after all. The whole top coating aspect can be very worrisome if relying on said coat itself to be the wear coat on horizontals. I prefure that the thing to take the wear is the hardened combination of top wood and cured oil. Does that make sense? Honestly the more we tread from what I am saying of natural old time wood working is the more we go towards paint as a mainstay. There is nothing like firstly staining some wood and then sealing it with curing oils. Sanding between coats etc. is of course too much for exterior work on a deck but man the beauty and bone hard durability of something like a gun stock is something to still strive for.. But so anyways, we're usually pretty much on same page and I respect everyone having to do what they have to do to deal with a specific product. In the end we do have to respect a products abilities or inabilities to do what we want them to. Reason why I been mixing some my own stuff is to get to what I want in an old time 'in the wood finish'. Similarly I think same applies to actual manufactures when they change formulas or come up with something like Woodrich Stain and Seal. That stuff is about as close as I seen to doing what I want outside the multi step methods of staining/oiling/sealing with sparry type long oil mix. Mind you I don't of course always strive for the 'in the wood' with natural stuff. i often have to settle for it with a more synthetic product .. ..good convo Ken!! ps- one other thing to think about when considering going 'in the wood'.. the rougher the wood the more the unsealed areas will show up until the wood is sealed to the very top of its surface. If not cherrying back down you wil usually end up with a top film most everywhere with the part that was last to get filled being thinnest. You want satin 'in the wood' look then go smoother wood and backbrush things down before dry. Roughness gets filled better with a thicker top coater of course.

OVT has for sure worked for me with their recommneded one coat. Think their only deviation from that was that lite colrs may need two.

Ken my friend you ever gonna stop the absorbtion talk?..:) Darker the stain to be used the finer the sanding grit. Standard is to goto either 100 or 120 but 80 is usually enough to rid wood of visable scratches left over from the previous grit. Final grit can affect mechanical grip of a stain/sealer but a real smooth finish higher than 120 does not effect actual absorbsion of a stain or sealer unless the wood became burnished/heated and closed off from running sanders too fast with clogged paper. If the wood is open it is open. It can be like a sponge whether it 32 grit or 500. Closest thing to a description or look of lower absorbtion comes to play by way of application tecniques of certain products on smooth wood.The nature of brushing a film forming type stain/sealer for instance can leave a tad more pigment or resin in one spot than another when backbrushing the smooth surfaces. If staining a rougher 60 grit or say a rougher wood like a fence board the roughness just plain holds more pigment and resin on top just as if you were cleaning goop off a putty knife on a straight edge. In essence some finishes/coatings may do better or rely on more surface roughness to hold a thick enough coat to trick the eye. It does not see blotchyness, and the wood looks deeply filled, etc. Yes it is nice at times to be able to just get things stained darker and hold the surface better with a single coat and in fact some pruducts recommend no more than one coat but really what is involved does not do the finish product any justice. Especially for folks looking for a smooth highly contrasting grain look to their wood. Wood floor finishing, interior furniture and gun stocks are all done smooth and yet there is plenty of absorbtion, stain depth, etc....Sorry to sound contentious on this Ken but that use of the word absorbtion is myth. As example take a rough fence board and sand a couple sections in with one going to 120 and another stepped up to 800. Stain all 3 sections. You will not see absorbtion differences on the sanded sections but you may feel a difference. The rough section will be more solid like a paint due to all the microscopic peaks and valleys holding more on top. Some product this could risk more abrasion wear from foot traffic actually if it not meant as a film former persay. But so cut the boards in half and see the stain goes just as deep on all sections if same application and brush loading, etc..

nah... it was so dirty he thought it was wood under there. :)

Suppose $90 per fiver could be good. Haven't priced it that way for awhile now and forget how much I can get it for in bulk. I do know the retail offerings of some brands such as Jasco have different levels of concentrates and ability. I usually just get customer to flip bill for the Epoxy one... that runs about $30. I mainly use for interior concrete situations along with lac thinner rinsing. I don't use HD80. When I speak of it I am usually basing things in regard to it's main generic ingrediant of hydroxide or passing along other folks info. I mainly use a ready made hydroxide product local to me that is already sufficiently boosted and strong enough in its liquid form to downstream strip most semi acrylics or oils. To comment on what ya said to RJ about the solids..I agree and have no issues with letting folk stick with the solids if that what they want or it is appropriate to the job. I part ways though in going for two coats though. Frankly I dislike the time involved and having to price figure the extra material into the job. The Cabot OVT is specifically a one coat product and my current choice. Can't say how long it lasts as others may already know but I like the coverage rates, the single coat aspect to it, and that it is oil which makes for compatability when using sem-trans decking stains on the horizontals. Hard to find that in a brand. I would welcome hearing of some other one coat oilborne solid options as the cabots is a tad pricey.

Rich, By one of yer own workups that is based on discussion with Russel the amount I calculated your info comes to 6.4 oz per gal. Further on in other posts Russel and others say upto 10% of solution (12.8 oz) which btw happens to translate well if you were into slowly making very hot/hardcore downstreamable concoctions.

Chris, meth is usually considered too expensive for large areas but yup it the bomb. Even better maybe going to blasting methods but that takes us from the chem stripping topic. Simply dwelling/keeping the hydroxides wet, boosting/surfacting with glycols and such should suffice for most anything outside of poly or epoxy coatings. Some will soak area real well and then lay plastic overnight to keep it wet and reacting. When I use meth it usually on real thick 2 part coatings on concrete.

OMG that is going to be one of the two most spectacular things I see today!!

Hi Ron.. don't ya know DARK humour goes well with dirt and grime?...trouble is the darker it gets the less we can trust it to have been meant as such..haha :)

What no mention of Nacho Libre being the national ad campaign for tourism or the chupacabra being as sacred as a hindu cow? :lgbonk: