How would you handle this?

[copgib 15]

I need some wood refinishing advise if possible. I have a 12' X 12' deck with no railing, just a flat deck. It is pressure treated wood that had been stained with a Thompson's light shade of stain. I cleaned the deck with F18 and then sprayed it with oxy. I went back yesterday to look at it and I noticed a couple spots that I didn't see earlier that where small but seem to still have alittle of the old stain on the wood. Tomorrow, Monday I am suppose to seal the deck since it has dryed out. How would you handle this? Should I sand the few spots that I missed or just go ahead with staining? Customer requested I put Thompsons water seal back on the deck. I am putting on a clear stain. Any help would be appreciated. Hugh

[Mike W 14]

It depends. What were the expectations that the customer had, and what did you say you would deliver? I would strip it again and schedule the sealing for another day. Why Thompsons? If a customer wants to use any product on their deck that I don't use, they apply themselves. I also warranty all of my deck work. It is stated in the agreement that xx% to 100% of the stain will be removed. I guess it really is contingent on what your standards are and if sanding will be sufficient. If the stain is failing already, what ever you put on over that will also fail prematurely.

[sealerguy 14]

5" dewalt orbital sander with 100 grit hook and loop paper, it will only take a few minutes. If the sealer was thick use 60 or 80 grit. HD carries them but I go to lowes now just for those because their sandpaper is better, cheaper and comes in large contractor packs. Its a great tool to keep on hand anyway.

[copgib 15]

Chris I would say I saw 2-areas about 4" X 4" in size with the old stain still there. The owner says it is a tinted Thompson's stain which is up against the siding of the house. I don't want to wet the deck with water again if I can help it. The deck is dry enough for the stain now. Thanks Hugh

[John Orr 206]

I would sand the spots, which are probably left over from a long-forgotten stain.

I realize that you're not looking for an argument over the use of Thompson's, but if a customer insists on using any inferior product, I would require a signature for release of liability.

[copgib 15]

John the customer has already signed a release of liability form I gave him since he is so set in what he wants. Thanks for the suggestion but I have already thought of ways to cover my butt on this one. Hugh

[PressurePros 249]

I'd probably spot sand but a couple of notes to keep in the back of your mind.

• Removing stain/sealer with any type of efficiency requires very low (numerically) grit paper. Anything higher than 32 is very slow. There is never really any need to go higher than 60 even for final finish. It affects the absorption of many staining products.

• The other side of the coin is that if you are spot sanding aggressively enough (ie removing finish) you are likely to create hotspots that will be noticeable even when you apply a finish.

[MMI Enterprises 289]

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..

[PressurePros 249]

Kevin, I don't mind the dissention. You make a good point. Perhaps a better word for me to use generically is adhesion. You already touched on the topic so we may not be that far apart in our thinking. Let me give you my point of view. High numeric, fine grit papers clog very easily on exterior surfaces. The rate of friction between fine paper and wood starts lower to begin with. Fine paper creates more heat. I have found when not properly sanded (paper changed often, proper rpm, broad movement pattern) you can indeed create a glaze by heating the sugars and oils in the wood. This, in my experience creates both adhesion and absorption issues. You are much more adept at explaining the science. You can probably help me understand this phenomenon better. I only know what I see and experience.

I will tell you one thing.. 60 grit paper creates a plenty smooth surface but at the same time, it is lousy at removing stubborn stain spots. Again experience here, no science. If we are talking about exterior staining products that will not have a urethane protective coat like a hardwood floor or a piece of furniture will have, adhesion is paramount when working with a thorough curing product. If you use products that film (which is everything except those made with 100% mineral oil), using fine paper will affect your finish life.

So I stand by my original recommendation to not use too fine of a grit of paper and stand corrected on my use of the word absorption with the exception of the caveats of heat generation mentioned above. The bottom line is, fine sandpaper used for this application is not only futile, it will affect the finish life of any product that cures.. which is everything except those made with 100% mineral oil.

[MMI Enterprises 289]

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.

[sealerguy 14]

KEN: I only use 100 for very smooth/new wood on rough and/or stubborn spots (expecially new with mill glaze), if we use anything lower it makes swirl marks and looks worse than what we are trying to fix, most of the time just to get rid of small spots of sealer left on the deck after stripping 60 works just fine, changing pads often, and i'm talking small areas a couple inches or so. Not many guys this way do anything about it except just seal over it. Been working great for me for 13 years, Not talking sanding the whole floor, wow, this topic got pretty scientific.(LOL)

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Kevin, I don't mind the dissention. You make a good point. Perhaps a better word for me to use generically is adhesion. You already touched on the topic so we may not be that far apart in our thinking. Let me give you my point of view. High numeric, fine grit papers clog very easily on exterior surfaces. The rate of friction between fine paper and wood starts lower to begin with. Fine paper creates more heat. I have found when not properly sanded (paper changed often, proper rpm, broad movement pattern) you can indeed create a glaze by heating the sugars and oils in the wood. This, in my experience creates both adhesion and absorption issues. You are much more adept at explaining the science. You can probably help me understand this phenomenon better. I only know what I see and experience.

I will tell you one thing.. 60 grit paper creates a plenty smooth surface but at the same time, it is lousy at removing stubborn stain spots. Again experience here, no science. If we are talking about exterior staining products that will not have a urethane protective coat like a hardwood floor or a piece of furniture will have, adhesion is paramount when working with a thorough curing product. If you use products that film (which is everything except those made with 100% mineral oil), using fine paper will affect your finish life.

So I stand by my original recommendation to not use too fine of a grit of paper and stand corrected on my use of the word absorption with the exception of the caveats of heat generation mentioned above. The bottom line is, fine sandpaper used for this application is not only futile, it will affect the finish life of any product that cures.. which is everything except those made with 100% mineral oil.

It's not the paper that creates the heat Ken, it's the friction from the motion of the sander. I have seen both fine and course paper clog, and it depends entirely on what you are removing. If you want a furniture finish, but are removing a coating, start coarse, end fine. For exterior surfaces our top end grit is 80, 60 is ok also. If you are doing interior work, you would of course sand progressively finer.

Beth :cup:

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

I disagree with Kevins assertion that one can use anything above 80 grit on exterior wood and still get longevity out of the product.

A fact of the matter is that the wood will absorb and hold more product with a lower grit being used. My point specifically is that above 80 grit, the sealer has very little hold on the wood and will fail quicker than otherwise. I have seen this first hand and in other posts related to this explained my encounter with a customer who thought they knew better.

Remember, we are dealing with exterior wood and not interior based wood. The temperature variances wood goes through on any given day can test to the adhesion capabilities of any product trying to hold onto the substrate. Open grain occurs with varied degrees according to grit used. Unless you are coating all 6 sides of the board, failure is considerably faster with higher grit finishes.

Yes, oil vs latex vs acrylic etc... Still, our company is trying to get the product to last as long as possible and if you are trying to (metaphorically speaking) get it to hold on by it's finger tips verses having a good hand hold, I think this makes a good example. Penetration has always been key and that ability is affected by the final grit used.

One other thing to take into consideration: sanding just a spot or two will give the wood an uneven look once the product is applied. Our rule of thumb is to sand the entire length of board in order to maintain the consistency of the finish.

There are cleaning sticks you can buy to keep your sandpaper cleaner and usable longer and helps to alleviate clogging. Beware though, if you don't get dust as you are sanding, you are burnishing the wood. Some wood has been hardened by linseed oil and will be a bear to sand to a decent finish. I recommend a planer instead.

Rod!~

[RPetry 564]

Have to agree with Rod. For many of the reasons stated, we never use a grit higher than 80 for exterior wood, and nine out of ten jobs use 60 grit.

If you do a lot of sanding, check out the Klingspor products. Their sandpapers are extremely durable and save time and expense. Makes box store sandpaper look like tissue.

[plainpainter 217]

I use 40 grit most of the time - I think of 80 grit as 'fine' sanding for exterior.

[Celeste 341]

Great link Rick - thanks :)

[James 625]

I find 40 is too rough for spot sanding. For spot sanding I use brass brushes on a drill or the Ozzy Borne Brush . Or big scrappers after I oil it comes off easier. Brass brushes are very fast.

[JumpFeetFirst 14]

I was thinking that if you have to spot sand to do so along the whole board to be more uniform looking when you stain. I mean you know to me it is like interior wood. When a stain package comes in the only choice a HO should make is to go with the clear package as to not have the end result looking like piece together wood work. Since there are paint grade and stain grade interior wood choices. Is there such a choice for exterior wood?

I think if you sand each board end to end even though you may get a different looking color of stain atleast it will look more like a different type of wood rather than where you sanded a bunch of bald spots into the wood causing it to not penetrate properly.

You maye be able to argue that absorption is not a option, but penetration is. Even cleaning wood with certain types of chemicals will cause different penetration variables.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

I was thinking that if you have to spot sand to do so along the whole board to be more uniform looking when you stain.

Bingo! It is very easy to sand a blond spot onto a board, which will give you an uneven look when you seal. When sanding in spots, make sure you even the board out.

Beth

[MMI Enterprises 289]

I disagree with Kevins assertion that one can use anything above 80 grit on exterior wood and still get longevity out of the product. Disagreeing is fine if only that was what I was asserting. Your assertation does not leave room for or recognize that I fully allowed for and recognized the heat glazing or the various products abilities ir not many other points I was making..So please don't put words in my mouth...thanx Rod :)

A fact of the matter is that the wood will absorb and hold more product with a lower grit being used. Prove the absorb part in a test by measuring an amount of stain and applying it to a specific size area of a rough section and a smooth section of same board. Perhaps the rough will seem deeper or seem to take more of course as there is more surface area but this of course should be considered on top rather than 'in the wood' by absorbtion which I was addressing. Cut the test section and see how deep stuff went. Chances are the thicker the product the less penetration or absorbtion into the wood OF the resin but both sections I suspect will show the same. Chances are also that end result is that the rough section is relying more on top coating but both are sealed just as deep. The rough took a tad more as it is on the wood. Your use of "hold" is another matter that I don't entirely disagree with..(which btw, I also basically said to Ken also) My point specifically is that above 80 grit, the sealer has very little hold on the wood and will fail quicker than otherwise. Now the failure part of this statement I can support WHEN speaking perhaps to many if not the majority of exterior products. I respect the use and picking of the 80 grit level as it is fact that 60 leaves visable to the eye scratches that may pronouce a darker stain if not relying on leaving an actual top film.-aka- wiping or back brushing off excess. I have seen this first hand and in other posts related to this explained my encounter with a customer who thought they knew better. Wrong product selection would be the 'why' if your speaking about an early mechanical grip related failure. Do you think such would have happened if you had penetration with an rs oil type product?

Remember, we are dealing with exterior wood and not interior based wood. The temperature variances wood goes through on any given day can test to the adhesion capabilities of any product trying to hold onto the substrate. Yes would not be good to disregard and we have to support that most product is going to be susceptable to weather and temp variances. I will just make note though that spar type long oils have been dealing with such issues for centuries so who are we to think that such has not been surmounted regularly. (just doesn't play very easily into everyones idea of a remaintenance programs though)

Although it hardly as severe or quik it can be sited that even interior wood such as wood flooring often contracts and expands from humidity on a season basis. The usual there is a flexable poly. Such is not used on decking though as all 6 sides would need done. Open grain occurs with varied degrees according to grit used. Your welcome to proove... not saying you have to or even that I would myself but just that it would be nice. Unless you are coating all 6 sides of the board, failure is considerably faster with higher grit finishes. Have to assume this speaks to humidity infiltration AND to a little thought of theory I have that says the microscopic peaks of a rough board stick through and above or are thinner sealed which more readily allow moisture to evap away from board as a whole. Extended period of excess moisture in wood is likely to soften the mechanical grip and rough board is better equiped to handle over a smooth. Again this applies of course only IF drying oils did not penetrate and the seal is not in the wood but rather on top the wood. A oil soaked board that becomes bone hard inside from the oil being a curing oil does not suffer this near as much as being imagined. Facts as I see them tell me that in relying on top coating more often than not people are forced to rely on mil thickness rather than quality of product itself. Different field of work of course, but even my acrylic flooring work on crete or vinyl tells me of the huge differences between product quality versus mil thickness. I can see failure on noncontracting smooth flooring in days with some product or on the other hand go a whole quarter before refreshing with another coat. The old Timex analogy surely applies in the exterior wood finishes much more than we give them credit is what I am saying here. If relying on top coat/mechanical grip I would not be so quik to imply a failure was out of prep grip or smoothness before actual product quality of its durability and hardness unless it straight up cracked off the surface... Stuff just wears, washes away, allows to much moisture in to only get trapped under a tightly sealed section or basically disinigrates if it junk compared to another more perhaps suitable product.

Yes, oil vs latex vs acrylic etc... Still, our company is trying to get the product to last as long as possible and if you are trying to (metaphorically speaking) get it to hold on by it's finger tips verses having a good hand hold, I think this makes a good example. Penetration has always been key and that ability is affected by the final grit used. No problem as I am partial to metaphores myself.. :). Penetration is in the equation not soley for surface mil mechanical grip sake but for in some situations (or product goal and intention) to create a sealed mass of fibers trapping oil in and water out. I would have to find it exagerative if one is to suggest that a sealer or coatings lasting/sticking is akin to it about ready to fall off a cliff or such or is one of the most common faliures when everyone can see situations of a first coat giving no top film or coating gloss and then a second starts to gives build and gloss and a third makes an even glossier one. (yes this comes from acrylics, lacquer,poly, epoxy experiences on all sorts of interior and exterior projects). Put a first sealing coat of a thin product in and you'll play hell getting it out. Trick is to bind to it in proper time with proper product. In case of many of our exterior products it may just be that the binding mechanisms and solid percentages are precarious to say the least when trying to be both a stain and a seal. We are asking them to be penetrative, to bind the pigments, and to also stick and bind to itself. Can be a hard enough thing to formulate as one aspect affects the other. I can demonstrate this precariousness by sighting trying to get tape to stick to an unpainted drywall/mudded wall. Dried unresinated particles are no good for to bind to.For those that understand that your now free to also translate that to taking a thick stain or coating without much penetration ability and applying it to a dry wood. In the end getting oil into the fibers whether a curing oil or not should make for a bit better bind as your making a mass or even a suction if you will with no free particle willing to release the top film..--aka tape in a drywall situation...

Now much stuff in the coating world cures hard enough and has enough binder to lock in and make good on the smoothest of surfaces or the roughest...Mainly acrylics.

But back to smooth versus rough..Honestly I seen just as much rough wood versus smooth wood underneith the failed areas of some decks. Have to contribute such failure to crap product and moisture/grip issues in general rather than smooth over rough issues. Anyone else seen them finishes crack off and there is good unstained wood directly underneith..That is called paint/too thick a resin situation/or crap stain.. with no penetration/wetting whether rough or smooth it happens just like the taping to a drywall. Thing that is true is that yes ya got to have penetration when dealing with most stuff as it would be true that the end thickness/mil of most dried product whether it is all on top or in the wood is not actually thick and strong enough on its own merit to support for one the weight of say a human walking on it unless it becomes part of or within the fbers of the wood itself or has it as its backing. The mil thickness of such stuff that I put on flooring for instance not likely hold the weight of traffic itself without it being backed up by a stable surface as example..

If anyone reads me this far on this it could probably be seen that I am not disagreeing persay but am being rather specific so as all the issues are not simply credited to one cause. Much involved with adhesion, failure, penetration, absorbtion and the 'why's' and often times things get pigion holed wrongly. I can't even begin to tell how many times that Rod, Ken, Dan, Rick, etc, or various finsih suppliers I've conversed with over the years have been correct on things in terms of end result and but I can't also begin to say how many times I have had shockingly contrastng reasons to the 'whys' something happened straight from chemist or scientist mouth. I've learned not to jump or call eveything at face value or call all products same that is for sure.

One other thing to take into consideration: sanding just a spot or two will give the wood an uneven look once the product is applied. Our rule of thumb is to sand the entire length of board in order to maintain the consistency of the finish.

There are cleaning sticks you can buy to keep your sandpaper cleaner and usable longer and helps to alleviate clogging. Beware though, if you don't get dust as you are sanding, you are burnishing the wood. Good point! Some wood has been hardened by linseed oil and will be a bear to sand to a decent finish. 'hardening with linseed'..aka- the mainstay of old world 'in the wood' finishing. I recommend a planer instead.

Rod!~

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.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

I propose an even simpler test; Sand one side of a board with 130-150 grit and the other side with 80 grit and let the color do the talking. One coat on each and no cheating.

I guarantee you that the side done with 80 grit will be darker than the other. This is an exhibit of absorption. Wood is only as open as the grit you apply provided one gets to new, dry wood. The finer the grit the more closed the wood becomes. The exception is severely old and dry which is open due to excessive cracking etc.

I like all the fancy talk and technical jargon but when it comes down to it, simplicity is easier to understand than the dissertation you just provided Kevin.

btw, not trying to put any words into your mouth, you have enough for all of us. lol. just kidding with you on that but my initial statement in post #13 was a supporting argument and you misunderstood that point.

Technically, you are talking subjectively and while you were trying to cover as many possibilities as you could but dag!

Anyway, product was not the cause of the failure but preparation was in the situation I mentioned in that same post. Finer grits actually lead to a polished finish and with that in mind penetration is limited to what can be absorbed by the woods fibers closer to the surface. For the sake of specifics, we are going to define that we are talking about "softwoods" which are fibrous thus this is the method of introduction of any oils or solvents into the substrate.

Hardwoods in contrast are porous which makes absorption shallow no matter what grit is used. These woods are also higher in extractives which can make the wood impermeable. Softwoods have a higher permeability and are by far the best at accepting a coating/finish or conditioner due to the ability of the material to absorb in depth as well as laterally. The ability of this material to absorb is determined by the condition of it. Being "open" for example is technically correct in dry pristine wood that has not been exposed to any other treatments. This condition decreases as the fibers absorb any previously applied treatment including water. Fibers are like a sponge, therefore they need to be vacant in order to be able to absorb. Once filled, these fibers become less able to absorb which necessitates sanding to expose newer fibers. Otherwise, these fibers are altered and can no longer accept any new finish as they once did.

Now, in regard to thicker formulas vs fine oils, this is a mute point. Absorption will vary accordingly and the ingredients included will determine what will penetrate and to what level. Fibers are constructed very close together and have little space between them to allow larger particles such as pigments and resins to go much deeper than a few mils. Oils, on the other hand have a compatibility with wood fibers due to the nature of pitch and resins found naturally in them according to species. This is the primary reason most products use oils or water to act as a penetrative medium to facilitate drawing pigments and resins deeper into the substrate.

So, your need for proof that the product has penetrated deeper in one condition versus another is not going to show much color in the cross cut to verify your claim due to the separation that occurs as an act of filtration. The larger particles (pigment and resins) will stay closer to the surface while the oils which have a negligible amount of color will not show deeper into the wood. The whole point of penetration in the case of stains is the get the color deep into the wood in order to have any durability. The oils are guaranteed to dive deep but they do not provide the UV protection. The pigments do, the resins and binders hold them there. There is no 'mechanical grip', only chemical bonding.

I see what you are talking about in the failures scenario but that is not the premise of what was being discussed so I find that part misleading. Application level imperfections are not just operator induced but also are characteristics of penetration due to the wood grain direction in the cut of wood. Have you ever seen two boards side by side absorb differently? One will actually push the product back out while the adjacent board will take and take and take. This can happen along the same board according to the heartwood and sapwood proximity of a cut that exposes both because the trunk when put through the mill had large branches which originate towards the center of the tree.

To further define what grit does, lets look at it from a sideview. When the wood has been sanded with a fine grit, the wood will look like a very level surface. A rougher grit will leave it looking like jagged valleys in comparison.

For outdoor applications, this is optimal as you are giving the product the ability to bond with more surfaces instead of just a level one. This increases bonding strength and durability by allowing a thicker layer of product to remain vs the thinner layer given the applications are the same.

Sorry for the long 'dissertation' but I figured one deserved another. :)

Rod!~

[MMI Enterprises 289]

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.

There is no 'mechanical grip', only chemical bonding.

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-

Now, in regard to thicker formulas vs fine oils, this is a mute point.

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-

It can be like a sponge whether it 32 grit or 500.

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??.. :)

[RPetry 564]

Kevin said:

I can't even begin to tell how many times that Rod, Ken, Dan, Rick, etc, or various finsih suppliers I've conversed with over the years have been correct on things in terms of end result and but I can't also begin to say how many times I have had shockingly contrastng reasons to the 'whys' something happened straight from chemist or scientist mouth.

Wood chemistry is a very difficult field. Throw in variations of species, UV exposure, moisture, temperatures, and the myriad of chemical and stain compositions and the complexity of factors increase geometrically.

During the "Great Bleach Debate" a few years ago, I had a Chemistry PhD. friend of mine take a look at the postings. His fundamental conclusion was, and I paraphrase .... "observation through experience is often the best teacher".

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.

With a paraffinic oil such as Ready Seal, absorption amount into the wood is the utmost consideration. Do a crosscut of a properly prepped and RS stained deck board. Note the depth into the wood, beyond the surface, that the stain resins and/or pigments reach. This is a primary factor in the lifetime of color retention.

It is my experiential observation that higher grit sandpaper inhibit the amount of stain absorbed into the wood.

[MMI Enterprises 289]

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.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

"observation through experience is often the best teacher".

It is my experiential observation that higher grit sandpaper inhibit the amount of stain absorbed into the wood.

Thank you Rick, that in a nutshell sums up the very basis of my arguments.

The second sentence is in direct correlation with practices that have been handed down for centuries.

I am only being open minded enough to consider the changes and evolution in formulations which may be innovating our preparation regimens to keep in line with them. So far, the tried and true still is in effect.

Rod!~

[MMI Enterprises 289]

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..