>From the slang I was brought up with it would be: "Thick as a brick", another term would be "as thick as two short planks" or "a right two by four (2" x 4") " Brian Lawson, RPT, MPT Johannesburg, South Africa > Hi Terry, > > Have you ever heard the expression "As thick as a plank" you may have to > take this into consideration in your examinations of the explanations. > > Or is it "How thick is a Plank ?" > > > Tony Caught ICPTG > Australia > caute@optusnet.com.au > > > > Well, I don't dispute your facts. The most pertinant thing here is likely > > the following: > > > > > "End grain absorbs fastest, on the other hand and which > > > abounds in actions but not so much in boards." > > > > It's easy for me to imaging uncoated endgrain action parts absorbing > > moisture much more quickly than coated soundboard cut parallel to the long > > dimension. > > > > Terry Farrell > > Piano Tuning & Service > > Tampa, Florida > > mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Clark" <caccola@net1plus.com> > > To: <pianotech@ptg.org> > > Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 12:33 PM > > Subject: Re: Wood & Humidity, was Hammers > > > > > > > Hi there, Terry, > > > > > > > Are we really sure that a varnish/laquer covered spruce panel > > > > would absorb more moisture than an unprotected piece of > > > > maple/hornbeam/walnut (or whateverelse and action is made of)? > > > > > > My tattered copy of the "Wood Handbook" (Department of Agriculture, > > > 1955, and it came that way) gives moisture shrinkage ratios for a ton of > > > stuff (more than their current pub's, maybe less than "Woods of the > > > World") but not the times involved. (Do drying schedules reflect this? I > > > don't have a reference as to their meanings.) > > > > > > Wood 20%wmc 6% 0% > > > Spruce 3.8 8.0 11.5 > > > Maple 5 11.9 14.9 > > > Hornbeam 6.5 13.6 19.4 > > > > > > (p.315-318) > > > > > > So far as finishes excluding moisture at 11%wmc over two weeks of nearly > > > saturated conditions, the following table is given: > > > > > > 3 coats of Al powder in gloss oil/varnish 92% > > > 3 coats Al powder in shellac 92% > > > Heavy coating of paraffin 91% > > > 3 coats rubbing varnish 89% > > > 3 coats shellac*********************************87% > > > 3 coats enamel (cellulose-lacquer vehicle) 76% > > > 3 coats cellulose-lacquer 73% > > > 3 coats gloss oil bronzing liquid 12% > > > 3 coats furniture wax 8% > > > no coats of anything 0% > > > > > > (p.377) > > > > > > Extrapolating from this in terms of volumetric expansion ratios, for an > > > arbitrary 1x1x1 square at 11%wmc over an exposure period, either raising > > > or lowering wmc by 2%: > > > > > > wood 11% +2% -2% > > > Spruce 1 1.001 0.999 (shellacked) > > > Spruce 1 1.008 0.992 (unshellacked) > > > Maple 1 1.010 0.990 > > > Hornbeam 1 1.013 0.987 > > > > > > Most probably it's not so linear or uniform, and surely these average > > > values neglect differing absorption rates due grain orientation: radial > > > (quarter) and tangential (flat) absorption is compared for Douglas Fir > > > and SY Pine. Assuming the figures I used above are for an equal > > > distribution of grain orientation, the overwhelmingly radial board > > > should change dimensions more than more or less square action parts. End > > > grain absorbs fastest, on the other hand and which abounds in actions > > > but not so much in boards. Else that old stuff is as differr/9uas I've > > > heard claimed! > > > > > > Does this stuff look right? > > > > > > > > > Clark > > > > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC