[CAUT] Hammer-Lac

[David Ilvedson]

Does the lacquer say what percentage of solids?   Obviously, the higher number is the thinner...

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm at unm.edu>
To: caut at ptg.org
Received: 2/18/2010 2:56:25 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Hammer-Lac



>On Feb 18, 2010, at 3:14 PM, David Ilvedson wrote:

>> 8:1 solution?
>>
>> David Ilvedson, RPT
>> Pacifica, CA  94044


>	With reference to what? What Steinway uses to dip a whole set? That  
>solution is something on the order of 3-4% solids, which is 3:1 of  
>what they had been using before to finish pianos, but then became 6:1  
>or so when they changed suppliers. That's what I am remembering.
>	The problem is that ratios mean nothing unless you know the  
>concentration of the original, and that may vary a lot. Which is one  
>reason we tend to talk at cross purposes about the use of lacquer. I  
>remember being told very specifically by Ron Coners that what they  
>used was 3:1, and being rather shocked that they would use such a  
>strong solution. What he meant was 3 parts thinner, 1 part lacquer, so  
>another way you could express it is 25% solution (which some people  
>might express as 4:1, or maybe as one in four).
>	It turned out (I learned a couple years later) that they went to the  
>finish room and dipped some out of the supply there. And that lacquer  
>had probably been pre-thinned. Eric Schandall finally clarified that  
>what they started with was about 12% solids (if my memory serves), I  
>think by weight, if that makes an appreciable difference. And then  
>maybe five years ago something changed in the finish room (maybe a  
>different supplier), and they went dipping and found the results were  
>"a wee bit strong," and they discovered the concentration had changed.  
>Or so I remember hearing.
>	My lacquer off the shelf is in the 20%+ range for solids content. So  
>about 6:1 mix of that gives 3-4% solids.
>	Maybe someone else has more precise information. Memory does blur a  
>bit over the years.
>Regards,
>Fred Sturm
>University of New Mexico
>fssturm at unm.edu