methanol instead of dna for bowls?

[John Daugherty]

I can get a couple gallons of methanol free. Will methanol work for drying bowls? With the price of dna being around 13.00/gal, I could save a few bucks. I think methanol is added to ethanol sometimes in the denaturing process. Would there be any safety concerns?

[Gil Jones]

Lots of info here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol

[John Hart]

Methanol is the agent that my company uses to wash and dry the chemicals that we manufacture. I know very little other than that. I've asked this question in the past and been told that it will do the job just as well. But the odor is less than desireable....whereas the DNA doesn't have much of a smell at all. Same thing for 99% pure Isoprophyl...works the same...has a smell.

[George Tokarev]

I can get a couple gallons of methanol free. Will methanol work for drying bowls? With the price of dna being around 13.00/gal, I could save a few bucks. I think methanol is added to ethanol sometimes in the denaturing process. Would there be any safety concerns?

Methanol won't dry (dehydrate) bowls unless you use several dilutions and long soaks. But then again, neither will ethanol. Save all the bucks and omit the alcohol.

Denaturing is generally done by adding a stinking agent to the ethanol to make it unpalatable, since methanol is merely poisonous, not disgusting. BTW, the treatment for methanol poisoning is ethanol.

Safety concerns in the volatility, the rate of uptake through the skin or mucuosa would keep methanol out of my shop. You can use milder solvents for the same purpose.

[Mark Cothren]

Don't know about methanol, but I *KNOW* from experience that the DNA soaking method produces good results. I'm sure other methods (that I haven't tried) work - and maybe just as well - but the proof is in the puddin'... and I gots plenty of puddin' around my shop that says it works...:D

[Dale Gregory]

Methanol (methyl alcohol) is nasty stuff:eek: , if you are going to use it, make sure you have adequate ventilation and use appropriate gloves (you can absorb it via skin contact, and inhalation. As George said, it's considered poison and has a cumulative effect on the body's nervous system, particularly the optic nerves. I would opt to use Ethanol (ethyl alcohol), much less toxic as long as you don't drink it;) .

Dale

[Jason Roehl]

Around here, the DNA we buy is mostly ethanol with about 3% methanol added to make it poisonous. That way the hardware stores don't have to have a liquor license to sell it and don't have to pay excise taxes on it.

George, there are quite a few folks who have done some very quantitative studying of the DNA drying method. Water and alcohol are miscible, so it is a plausible method for quicker drying.

[Frank Kobilsek]

John,
We had this conversation as our club meeting Monday. Those in the know claimed it was Ethanol that should be used. DNA does have some methanol in it and we debated which hardware store sold the lowest percentage of methanol. Another member talked about buying straight ethanol from a farm supply outlet but min quanity was too large for most to consider.

George, I am an engineer by education and trade but I leave room for faith in my life. DNA drying of bowls is something I have faith in.

Frank

[George Tokarev]

Perhaps you might want to look at another discipline, that of physical chemistry. There you will want to look at differential distillation, the process by which ethanol is enriched from ~15% to ~95%. It works because alcohol leaves the solution more rapidly than water under the same temperature and pressure conditions. Raoult's law explains it for closed systems. 95% ethanol is an azeotrope, a solution with a defined boiling point different than the ethanol or the water. You have to dehydrate that by other methods to get absolute ethanol.

Or you could do as I and others have done, prove it yourself by soaking on, not soaking another similar piece and drying both under the same conditions. Since science is by definition repeatable, I have confidence you'll get the same results. No difference in time to EMC nor in percentage of distortion.

[Keith Burns]

DNA works. It has been proven to speed drying times.

[Brian McInturff]

George,
When you did your test was that with an open lid container or closed lid container(for the DNA). And, did you keep the piece completely immersed in the DNA. Just curious at this point. Brian

Has anyone tried using dessicants instead of shavings in the "bag method"? Again, just curious at this point.

Thanks, Brian

[Mark Cothren]

George, I've dried bowls after soaking in DNA and I've dried bowls without soaking in DNA (but not many, because they always crack/split). I can count on one hand the number of bowls, platters and HFs that I've soaked in DNA and dried that I have lost due to excessive warping and checking. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, and you're certainly educated in these things... but I know it works because I've used it and seen for myself that it works. I can't give you the chemical/physical properties, nor any formulas to confirm nor deny that it works... all this ol' Arky knows is that if I drowned a roughed out chunk of wood in alky then wrap it up and let it dry for a couple of weeks that I can then turn it to finished shape, put some finish on it, and there it is...:D

[Bernie Weishapl]

George I disagree and I have to agree with Mark. I have been soaking bowls, boxes, etc. in DNA for a year now. The first 4 bowls I did cracked and had so much super glue it wasn't funny. I finally gave up on two of them. Since I started using the DNA method I have had 2 that I couldn't save after the DNA bath. Both happen to be apple wood. I am just a old Kansas hick with just a electronics education so nothing on the science side but I just know it works and works well. Yes I have tried a couple of bowls using DNA and without. The one without soaking is finally getting dry after 8 months. It warped and cracked every which way. The one I soaked I put back on the lathe in 2 or 3 weeks. Finished turning and finished it out.

[Brian McInturff]

I think George is theoretically correct. If you just look at the main properties involved it shouldn't work. Scientifically speaking. But, now throw all the other "field" parameters in the mix and I will agree with Mark , Bernie, Keith, David Smith, and a host of others that believe it does work. Having worked in the environmental cleanup and Haz Mat industry I know all too well that what doesn't work in the "classroom" and or text book often does in the field. Sugars, metals, off gassing, and various other physical and chemical traits in the wood can affect how the water in the wood and or the DNA respond to the wood. I've seen no study where all these other factors are taken into consideration. It's not a simple process of the DNA displacing the water but I think more a process of all the components combined. Not to mention how the blanks are actually treated during individual testing by what we call call "controlled environments".
Of course this is just my "scientific" analogy.
Brian:)

[Bill Wyko]

I may have to try this alcohol thing. I have 10 gallons of methanol racing fuel for my quad that is too old to run in my drag bike. That would be great if it works. Finally a way to use it up.:D

[John Hart]

What would happen to a leaf if you submerged it in pure alcohol for a few days?

[Travis Stinson]

George, I think everyone knows your stance on using DNA by now, you don't miss an opportunity to try to convince everyone that it won't work. I'm sorry, but you can provide all the scientific data you'd like and I don't think you'd change anyone's mind who is currently using it successfully. This Pear crotch HF, with 6 piths totally intact, was all the proof I needed that it works.....period. This one was turned wet in Oct. '05 and I buffed it 17 days later. This pic was taken just a couple weeks ago and it's the same as it was in '05. I know of at least 4 other similar turnings from this tree, all with piths intact. Those, along with several other turnings from known troublesome wood such as Madrone burl, Apple, etc. with no problems. You don't think it works.....that's fine. Me, I'll keep soaking. ;)

[John Daugherty]

Thanks for all the replies.
I think I will stay with the dna.
Another question. When I put the bowl in the bucket does it matter if I put a lid on it or should It be left uncovered? In the past I have just left it uncovered.

[Brian McInturff]

Put a tight lid on it. The DNA will evaporate if you don't. Over time as the level drops add new DNA to the container. I should bring home the Alcohol Hydrometer from work and see if and how it works with the DNA. I've also had good luck with Pesticide grade Isopropyl.
Brian

[John Daugherty]

thanks brian

[George Tokarev]

George,
When you did your test was that with an open lid container or closed lid container(for the DNA). And, did you keep the piece completely immersed in the DNA. Just curious at this point. Brian

Has anyone tried using dessicants instead of shavings in the "bag method"? Again, just curious at this point.

Thanks, Brian

Covered container. Don't imagine anyone would take the smell problems from leaving it uncovered. I weighted the pieces, because they had a lot of air in them from having the water thrown off. Ran different soak times, different woods, dried without wrap and with. No difference between soak and control. Which is to say that it proved the science was correct.

Dessicants will lower the relative humidity, which will improve the ability of the air to take up water. There is, of course a lot of water to be dealt with, so dessicants will have to be regularly renewed in a close container. Consider that a piece at fiber saturation point contains ~30% water by weight, much less remaining unbound water. Asking a lot from a modest amount of silica or clay. The air carries moisture away for free, and if you are careful enough to keep it from diluting and carrying away to fast, you will minimize degrade.

Interestingly enough, wood is a dessicant. It adsorbs water from the air too, though it has to be below the EMC to be effective. You can "renew" the wood just as you do the silica gel, by driving out the water with added energy in the form of heat.

[George Tokarev]

What would happen to a leaf if you submerged it in pure alcohol for a few days?

You do something similar with tissue samples in Histology. You make a series of alcohol soaks, discarding the dilutions until you make a final soak in absolute alcohol. This dehydrates the sample so it won't rot when you make your sections. With wood you're not dealing with soft tissue because it's dead, but with leaves you might do it. Same thing, of course, discarding the dilute solution to increase the percentage of alcohol.

Glycerol, as in the LDD thread, is used for preserving botanical samples. Keeps them flexible because it is hygroscopic, and with a high boiling point. Just like Madge's hands!

[George Tokarev]

I think George is theoretically correct.

It's not a simple process of the DNA displacing the water but I think more a process of all the components combined. Not to mention how the blanks are actually treated during individual testing by what we call call "controlled environments".
Of course this is just my "scientific" analogy.
Brian:)

Confirmed by controlled experiment. Ask the others if they've done any.

DNA displaces air. It mixes with water. Thousands of years of distillation confirm the fact that alcohol mixed with water evaporates at its own rate, per Raoult's law. Hey, for that matter, mineral spirits evaporate faster than oils they're mixed with, and gasoline fractions faster than kero. Examples abound.

Oh yes, proponents often say that alcohol somehow defies the laws of hydrogen bonding and replaces the more polar water on the sugars. Remember those same distillers store their product in wooden casks without serious loss of alcoholic potency. Evaporation is another matter, but that's just another confirmation of the science, even in the presence of wood.

Do everything except the alcohol and you'll get the same result. You can actually do less, of course. After some thirty years of testing fads and potions I find the best success comes from the way wood has been dried for thousands of years - controlling the relative humidity. Do that, and you'll be all you can be.

[John Hart]

I just know I'm going to regret this.:rolleyes:

I usually stay out of this discussion because there are so many passions floating about....BUT :p I have a thought. :eek:

What if there is a variable that no one is talking about. After all, there are loads of folks that say that it works...and there are loads that say that it doesn't work. Documented empirical data from controlled testing is lacking, where turned vessels are the subject matter....And I'm talking about good, solid, controlled testing.

Using identical turned vessels as the subject matter is something that might be missing somewhat. No flat pieces of wood allowed.

So....back to the thought that there might be a variable missing here. The variable I am thinking about is that of Cell Wall Rigidity. What if water content is a ghost...and that the Wood Cell Rigidity is really what gives the wood it's stability....and therefore, success when drying.

Remove the water, and the cell becomes rigid. Cell becomes rigid, and the wood stops moving. The wood stops moving, you have stability.

So....what if the alcohol has the capability to impart sufficient dessication to the Cell, allowing the cell to become rigid while saturated, and therefore provide better stability once the saturation is removed?

When I asked the biochemists here at our company about this subject, they agreed that a piece of green wood, whose cells were still viable, would allow the transferrence and exchange of moisture and alcohol through the cell wall through some magical permeable membrane/Molecular Bonding/Intergalactic sorta thing.

Now, I really don't understand this stuff very well, but I think I know what they were trying to say, and it did give rise, in my limited understanding, to the possibility that the proponents and opponents of this subject, could possibly be talking about two different things.

I think the best test is with two turned vessels with straight grain, from the same cut of the same tree. Equal wall thicknesses and identical shapes. In in brand new pure alcohol, I would suggest at least a week-long soak time to ensure complete absorbtion.

Ok....Shutting up.:o

[Brian McInturff]

George,
Another curiosity of mine is as follows: What happens if you put the blank under a constant vacuum. And what if you put the blank in a chamber submerged in DNA under a vacuum. And last but not least. If the blank was kept spinning would there be a decrease in the drying time.
Thanks, Brian

[Keith Burns]

John, I think that is a good idea !

This topic is almost as bad as Dust Collection.

Now here is the bottom line in all of this discussion. I am not a chemist and I consider it a miracle that I remember that H20 is water and all this sicentific talk is boring. The bottom line is that air drying on a shelf for a year works. Microwave works. DNA works. Kiln drying works. Putting it in an old refrigerator with a 60 watt light bulb and a vent hole works. Soaking it in soap works (I guess). What does it matter to anybody how I dry my blanks ? I use DNA and it works for me. Someone else sets them on a shelf for a year, doesn't matter to me. Bottom line is I don't care how you dry your stuff. Just don't try to convince me that I don't know what I'm doing because I use DNA and it works for me. Find what works for you and leave it at that.

[John Hart]

I usually dry my hair with a towel....but I'm seriously thinking about using an old refrigerator now. Thanks Keith!;)

[Mark Pruitt]

I usually dry my hair with a towel....but I'm seriously thinking about using an old refrigerator now. Thanks Keith!;)
John, if you'd wash your hair with DNA you wouldn't have to dry it.:p




-Mark, who BTW DNAs his bowls...;)

[Bill Boehme]

........This topic is almost as bad as Dust Collection........
No way, dude!! Nothing could be that bad.

Before John Hart made his post, I already was wondering what factors might be involved and was thinking that water might just be a red herring. However, I do not think that the cellulose in the cell walls is affected much by alcohol. I do suspect that while the wood is still green that the lignin and pectin in the cell walls could be somewhat soluble in alcohol -- enough so that soaking rough turned bowls could relieve enough of the stresses in the wood fibers to reduce the chance of cracking. This is the argument claimed by those who use the boiling technique.

I think that a rough analogy to this rationale can be seen in using thin strips of wood that are glued together in making bent laminations. If a water soluble glue such as hide glue were used, then cooking the glued up form in boiling water would soften the glue and allow the wood to relieve the stresses by straightening out.

After all, I would argue that the loss of water is not the direct reason that wood cracks. It is the shrinking of the lignin and pectin (which do not have a well defined cellular structure) acting somewhat like glue that is tightly bound to the much more rigid cellulose structure.

I also believe that microwave drying serves a very similar function in softening the lignin. In all of the mentioned methods, DNA, boiling, and microwaving there can be significant distortion, but the significant feature is the distortion is not accompanied by cracking because of softening of the lignin to relieve stresses and allow movement. Another argument that I would propose to support this thought is that splitting does not occur between cross laminations in plywood. Very high temperatures are used in the gluing process in manufacturing plywood and I suspect that this is another example of stress relief from softening the lignin.

Another example is steam bending where stress are actually added to the wood while it is hot.

By the way, I have never tried DNA soaking.

Bill

[George Tokarev]

Well, goes to the nature of how the wood holds the water. Unbound or free water is in the vessels and inside the empty cells. This goes away pretty fast with centrifuging, and I like to give it some help on mildew-prone pieces by blasting with compressed air. It's been a help on warp and go pieces, and certainly doesn't hurt any others.

Then there's the bound water, which is held by hydrogen bonds to the sugars which compose the cellulose. Once again, for those who believe in physical chemistry, the privilege of the bond goes to the more polar compound. By applying energy in the form of heat, you loosen the hydrogen bonds faster than just random loss, which is why kiln operators use it, and why we can use the microwave. Vacuum drying increases the vapor pressure and frees up the bound water rapidly as well. Bound water comprises about 30% by weight, and the loss of bulk associated with the loss of bound water is what causes shrinkage. Bulking agents, chief among them ethylene glycol in various molecular weights are used to create more dimensional stability. Since the water exerts more vapor pressure against the atmosphere than a surrounding liquid, soaking does nothing to release the water. The air dilutes and carries away water molecules, just as you physically dilute and discard the alcohol when drying tissue samples.

Lignin is not soluble in alcohol, but it flows at sub-boiling temperatures, which is why we can slip the fibers past one another to a certain extent, and then preserve what we've done to a great extent by clamping. I suspect that it's a bit of this flow in involved grain pieces which would be a help. Note that the pieces are still dried, as are the alcohol soaked types, with some control on the rate of loss, limiting degrade.

Nope, Weyerhauser doesn't use cheap and recoverable alcohol, rather expensive and lost energy to dry things. There's a reason.

[Scott Hurley]

I've been drying roughed bowl blanks in DNA for a couple of years with great results - as long as you keep your DNA fairly fresh. Because DNA is miscible with water, the water from the wood dilutes the DNA, and it becomes less effective over time. I didn't realize that until I noticed that the bowl blanks started to take longer and longer to dry. Then I found a thread at AAW had a link to an explanation. The link is "http://alcoholsoaking.blogspot.com" and then click the "determining alcohol percentage" link. In that page, it mentioned that the alcohol percentage should be at least 60%, and when I measured mine, I found it was only about 15%. Needless to say, my alcohol soaking was just about useless at that percentage. I now have a new supply of DNA.

Scott

[Mark Cothren]

Confirmed by controlled experiment. Ask the others if they've done any.


Controlled experiment? I don't reckon so... you've obviously done your homework - can't argue that. I'm just not sure how you come up with an opinion that We Who DNA are wasting our time...:confused: I haven't compared my DNA results against any other method. I haven't seen the need to since this has produced favorable results for me with hardly any exceptions.

Opinions differ on this method - no disputing that... but we might as well agree to disagree cuz you ain't gonna change many minds of us DNAlcoholics...:D

PEACE...:cool:

[Dennis Peacock]

Well, let's just say that I've done the following:

Air dried - 2 years per blank
Boiled - Too costly over time and dangerous to boot.
Brown Bagged - again waiting for over 1 year per blank
DNA - Been doing it this way now for 2 years with near 100% success rate. I've gone through 3 batches of DNA in 2 years which I figure isn't bad at all compared to using it to help dry over 80 bowl blanks.

No other process has yielded such a high success rate at the DNA method.

All this and $5 will get you a burger and a coffee and MacDonalds. :D

[Dick Strauss]

John,
First off, DNA can be had for $35 for a five gallon can at you local paint store. Do not use methanol because it is very toxic as others have mentioned. Please check Dave Smith's website for the scientific data. This data was gathered under more controlled conditions than the other data we've been presented so far.

RANT----I had a whole long note to correct some DNA misgivings but lost it due to time constraints, so I'll cut it short. I hate it when I get booted for not completing a note in less than 30-60 minutes or whatever!!!

George,
You've made a lot of statements that try to prove that DNA doesn't work. Let me ask and and give possible answers to a some of your statements to help the group get back on the right course.

Q1:Why don't vintners/distillers lose alcohol by storing their products in wooden containers?
A1:Vintners and distillers do lose alcohol for aged products that are stored in wood. Have you ever noticed that good 20 year old scotch has a lower alcohol content than the new stuff. The same is true for aged wines. Alcohol makers have confirmed this fact in several articles and television programs.



You state that alcohol will not penetrate the wood more than 1/8"-1/4". You state that you saw an experiment using alcohol and a colorant. When you cut the wood open after soaking, you could only see the pigment/dye so many eighths of an inch deep. So you concluded that the alcohol it didn't penetrate any deepr than the pigment/dye.

Q2:Why can't I see pigment in the middle of a soaked piece of wood if the alcohol and/or colorant mix did actually penetrate?

A2:Was this colorant a suspended pigment? If so, it won't penetrate the wood because of its large molecular size in relation to the the membrane openings. We see this same thing in wood finishing where pigments stay on the surface of the wood. If a dye was used, it is likely that the dye may not penetrate very far because of its large molecular size whereas alcohol has a smaller molecular footprint and could penetrate. You also lose dye concentration as you pass through more wood fibers and some of the dyes attach to the fibers. This doesn't prove that the alcohol didn't pentrate any deeper into the piece. Your orginal logic suggests that if a liquid is crystal clear, it must be water...which we all know is not necessarily true.

If the alcohol does penetrate through osmosis or some other mechanism (as I'm sure it does), isn't it possible it could might either combine with and/or displace water? If it displaces or combines with water, couldn't alcohol (or the combination) be more easily lost to evaporation due to its increased evaporation rate at room temp in an air environment?


Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm!!!!!

Dick

[George Tokarev]

Well, let's just say that I've done the following:

Air dried - 2 years per blank
Boiled - Too costly over time and dangerous to boot.
Brown Bagged - again waiting for over 1 year per blank
DNA - Been doing it this way now for 2 years with near 100% success rate. I've gone through 3 batches of DNA in 2 years which I figure isn't bad at all compared to using it to help dry over 80 bowl blanks.

No other process has yielded such a high success rate at the DNA method.

All this and $5 will get you a burger and a coffee and MacDonalds. :D

Or a Grande at Starbucks.

I've got a few years experience on you, since you mention it. More than twenty more, and I've dried a few pieces in my time. This is the west wall drying rack.

I encourage everyone to study the Wood Handbook data available free at the FPL site to learn about the nature of wood and wood drying. Their exhaustive research is no substitute for faith, but it's been really reliable. Your time and money are your own, but good information is not difficult to obtain.

http://preview.mmouse8.photosite.com/~photos/tn/9181345_1024.ts1174062482305.jpg

[George Tokarev]

John,


Q1:Why don't vintners/distillers lose alcohol by storing their products in wooden containers?
A1:Vintners and distillers do lose alcohol for aged products that are stored in wood. Have you ever noticed that good 20 year old scotch has a lower alcohol content than the new stuff. The same is true for aged wines. Alcohol makers have confirmed this fact in several articles and television programs.



You state that alcohol will not penetrate the wood more than 1/8"-1/4". You state that you saw an experiment using alcohol and a colorant. When you cut the wood open after soaking, you could only see the pigment/dye so many eighths of an inch deep. So you concluded that the alcohol it didn't penetrate any deepr than the pigment/dye.

Q2:Why can't I see pigment in the middle of a soaked piece of wood if the alcohol and/or colorant mix did actually penetrate?

A2:Was this colorant a suspended pigment? If so, it won't penetrate the wood because of its large molecular size in relation to the the membrane openings. We see this same thing in wood finishing where pigments stay on the surface of the wood. If a dye was used, it is likely that the dye may not penetrate very far because of its large molecular size whereas alcohol has a smaller molecular footprint and could penetrate. You also lose dye concentration as you pass through more wood fibers and some of the dyes attach to the fibers. This doesn't prove that the alcohol didn't pentrate any deeper into the piece. Your orginal logic suggests that if a liquid is crystal clear, it must be water...which we all know is not necessarily true.

If the alcohol does penetrate through osmosis or some other mechanism (as I'm sure it does), isn't it possible it could might either combine with and/or displace water? If it displaces or combines with water, couldn't alcohol (or the combination) be more easily lost to evaporation due to its increased evaporation rate at room temp in an air environment?


Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm!!!!!

Dick

Absolutely, the potency is diminished. The volume of alcohol and the volume of water lost are predicted accurately by Raoult's law. The smell is enticing, too, if you've visited. What isn't true is that alcohol bonds to the wood. Which, I believe is the essence of one "explaination" of the method.

The color was a dye. Standard stuff from staining cellular samples.

Osmosis demands a semi-permeable membrane. None such available. The penetration would be through stomata in the cell walls which allow lateral communication when the cells are actually full of cytoplasm. Good information on wood structure at that FPL site, really.

Think so? Violates experimental data, of course. http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/idealpd.html There is an azeotrope of ethanol/water. Well known one comprising approximately 95% ethanol and 5% water. Can't enrich any more by evaporation. Which suggests that if any other existed as yet undiscovered by science, you'd never be able to get to the 95%.

No need to speculate, really, the information's all out there on the net. Or you could try a side-by-side experiment.

[Jason Roehl]

A few years ago, I took the tour of the Jack Daniels Distillery in Tennessee. They had a cutaway display of the charred (red, I believe it was) oak barrels in which they age their whiskey. They said with changes in season, temperature and humidity, the whiskey penetrates more or less deeply. The barrels were maybe approaching 3/4" thick, and the whiskey line (very visible) was at least halfway through. So, 3/8" penetration isn't out of the question. How quick does it get that deep? That I don't know.

[Eric Wong]

In my line of work, DNA is Deoxyribonucleic Acid...

My projects usually involve the trading of DNA - mine on the project in the form of blood, and the wood's in me in the form of slivers.