Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
Woodworking B‑class ( inactive) | |||||||
|
I like the format of the chart but what the heck is implied by "rubbing qualities"? Judging by the chart it is virtually the opposite of what I understand by it. Linseed and tung oils are the classic "hand-rubbed" finish and other than in French polish, shellac MUST be applied with a brush unless you want a bunch of textile fibers in your finish. Am I wrong here?
OK, I found Flexner's article. Rubbing is with a grit inbetween coats. That would pretty much equate with "sanding" today.
Hoopiefromwayback 08:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. As interesting as I find the subject to be, I'm still an amateur. I've been trying to cut through the BS for thirty years by bugging experts, making unwelcome phone calls to the tech departments at various manufacturers, and even reading a book or two. One thing I can say is the old-fashioned encyclopedias were pretty worthless, especially in more practical areas. There was no bridge between the scientific and tradesman's knowledge. Wikipedia has a lot of potential. So I appreciate any and all legitimate contributions and corrections. I'm just trying to move the awareness and knowledge down the line a bit. I'll have to get a hold of Flexner's book. Hoopiefromwayback 17:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that I was also a little confused at the "rubbing qualities" column of the chart until reading your explanation above. I have been applying finishes in the coffin manufacturing industry in England and Scotland for 30 years, and the terms we normally use for "rubbing" are "de-nibbing" or "flatting" when smoothing between coats. The traditional hand-applied waxed finishes and the like have given way to spray finishes such as nitrocellulose, and more recently emmission regulation-compliant acid-catalysed two-part lacquers, especially for volume production. I can sympathise with Hoopiefromwayback regarding his search for enlightenment on the subject, but I have found that there is no substitute for rolling your sleeves up and learning from experience ( and sometimes many mistakes along the way!) Red Sunset 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I find the addition of the second a third paragraphs by Gavinmason somewhat inappropriately POV (see this diff [1]. I believe they should be deleted. However, there are two important points in there. First the British vs North American terminology and techniques. If they are as different as he claims we should document this in the article. Second, there is a substantial difference between what is available to the amateur in hardware stores and production finishes. The current article is heavy on the hardware store available finishes and haredly deals with the finishes available to the trade (Yes Gavin, we also have 'supplies are ordered via the manufacturer's representitive and are for "Professional Use Only" with no instructions on the tin.' in North American, and wiping a lacquer with a wet solvent-soaked rag to improve the shine is not exactly unknown.) Dresdner describes more than a dozen different types of spray finishes in addition to nitrocellulose lacquer, including: acrylic lacquer, CAB, vinyl lacquer, Urethane lacquer, sanding sealer, acrylic waterbase lacquer, polyacrylonite, polyacrylic, waterbased nitrocellulose, catalyzed lacquer, conversion varnish, polyester, cross linked waterbased lacquers. So how do we deal with these two issues? Suggestions? or someone wants to dive in? Luigizanasi 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess you took this from Flexner, and I haven't read Flexner in years, but my own experience with oil-based poly is that if the color change from blond shellac is marked enough you feel you have to point it out, then calling poly clear in comparison seems downright bizarre. While blond shellac is not completely clear, I would say that it is considerably more neutral in terms of toning effect than any oil-based poly I've ever used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmmcintyre ( talk • contribs) 07:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
There are many material called as Polyurethane. As long as they contain the urethane then they are called as Polyurethane. The oil Polyurethane actually not Poly urethane, it is refer to the oil finish or varnish. It has slightly brown yellow color. The modern polyurethane coating are mostly clear and available in many sheen, it is the "two component" poly urethane that used in wide range of coating especially for the wood coating and the automotive coating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarimustika ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Can we have information conveyed by wikipedia articles that explains WHY, i.e. quantifies the function of the article subject? In the wikipedia article I get better information than in a google search on WHY I may want to finish a piece of furniture but it still does not answer the question what do these finishes do for the wood in a way that helps me calculate if it's worth finishing a piece of furniture. I'd like to say it will extend the life of the wood by 2x in scenario A for example. Or does it merely extend the lifespan by 10%? What need is this article serving if not helping us quantify/understand the value of the work we perform? Is our time/energy not so valuable? What does wood finishing accomplish for us? Can the five year old child reading wikipedia learn something valuable here, and perhaps gain a higher social/cultural expectation on the value/utility of information exchange? Rtdrury ( talk) 15:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm just learning about finishing, and, having read a couple of the articles referred to by this article itself, have found that there's an important finish category missing from the chart: wiping varnish. Wiping varnish is varnish mixed with solvent; it's a whole product category. It's different and better than oil/varnish mixes according to one article. I don't feel qualified to add a row to the chart, but hopefully someone with the required experience will do. Frevi ( talk) 08:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
Woodworking B‑class ( inactive) | |||||||
|
I like the format of the chart but what the heck is implied by "rubbing qualities"? Judging by the chart it is virtually the opposite of what I understand by it. Linseed and tung oils are the classic "hand-rubbed" finish and other than in French polish, shellac MUST be applied with a brush unless you want a bunch of textile fibers in your finish. Am I wrong here?
OK, I found Flexner's article. Rubbing is with a grit inbetween coats. That would pretty much equate with "sanding" today.
Hoopiefromwayback 08:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. As interesting as I find the subject to be, I'm still an amateur. I've been trying to cut through the BS for thirty years by bugging experts, making unwelcome phone calls to the tech departments at various manufacturers, and even reading a book or two. One thing I can say is the old-fashioned encyclopedias were pretty worthless, especially in more practical areas. There was no bridge between the scientific and tradesman's knowledge. Wikipedia has a lot of potential. So I appreciate any and all legitimate contributions and corrections. I'm just trying to move the awareness and knowledge down the line a bit. I'll have to get a hold of Flexner's book. Hoopiefromwayback 17:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that I was also a little confused at the "rubbing qualities" column of the chart until reading your explanation above. I have been applying finishes in the coffin manufacturing industry in England and Scotland for 30 years, and the terms we normally use for "rubbing" are "de-nibbing" or "flatting" when smoothing between coats. The traditional hand-applied waxed finishes and the like have given way to spray finishes such as nitrocellulose, and more recently emmission regulation-compliant acid-catalysed two-part lacquers, especially for volume production. I can sympathise with Hoopiefromwayback regarding his search for enlightenment on the subject, but I have found that there is no substitute for rolling your sleeves up and learning from experience ( and sometimes many mistakes along the way!) Red Sunset 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I find the addition of the second a third paragraphs by Gavinmason somewhat inappropriately POV (see this diff [1]. I believe they should be deleted. However, there are two important points in there. First the British vs North American terminology and techniques. If they are as different as he claims we should document this in the article. Second, there is a substantial difference between what is available to the amateur in hardware stores and production finishes. The current article is heavy on the hardware store available finishes and haredly deals with the finishes available to the trade (Yes Gavin, we also have 'supplies are ordered via the manufacturer's representitive and are for "Professional Use Only" with no instructions on the tin.' in North American, and wiping a lacquer with a wet solvent-soaked rag to improve the shine is not exactly unknown.) Dresdner describes more than a dozen different types of spray finishes in addition to nitrocellulose lacquer, including: acrylic lacquer, CAB, vinyl lacquer, Urethane lacquer, sanding sealer, acrylic waterbase lacquer, polyacrylonite, polyacrylic, waterbased nitrocellulose, catalyzed lacquer, conversion varnish, polyester, cross linked waterbased lacquers. So how do we deal with these two issues? Suggestions? or someone wants to dive in? Luigizanasi 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess you took this from Flexner, and I haven't read Flexner in years, but my own experience with oil-based poly is that if the color change from blond shellac is marked enough you feel you have to point it out, then calling poly clear in comparison seems downright bizarre. While blond shellac is not completely clear, I would say that it is considerably more neutral in terms of toning effect than any oil-based poly I've ever used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmmcintyre ( talk • contribs) 07:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
There are many material called as Polyurethane. As long as they contain the urethane then they are called as Polyurethane. The oil Polyurethane actually not Poly urethane, it is refer to the oil finish or varnish. It has slightly brown yellow color. The modern polyurethane coating are mostly clear and available in many sheen, it is the "two component" poly urethane that used in wide range of coating especially for the wood coating and the automotive coating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarimustika ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Can we have information conveyed by wikipedia articles that explains WHY, i.e. quantifies the function of the article subject? In the wikipedia article I get better information than in a google search on WHY I may want to finish a piece of furniture but it still does not answer the question what do these finishes do for the wood in a way that helps me calculate if it's worth finishing a piece of furniture. I'd like to say it will extend the life of the wood by 2x in scenario A for example. Or does it merely extend the lifespan by 10%? What need is this article serving if not helping us quantify/understand the value of the work we perform? Is our time/energy not so valuable? What does wood finishing accomplish for us? Can the five year old child reading wikipedia learn something valuable here, and perhaps gain a higher social/cultural expectation on the value/utility of information exchange? Rtdrury ( talk) 15:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm just learning about finishing, and, having read a couple of the articles referred to by this article itself, have found that there's an important finish category missing from the chart: wiping varnish. Wiping varnish is varnish mixed with solvent; it's a whole product category. It's different and better than oil/varnish mixes according to one article. I don't feel qualified to add a row to the chart, but hopefully someone with the required experience will do. Frevi ( talk) 08:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)