I just finished viewing the DVD by Ted Sokolowski on Metal Inlaying. There are tips on there that make it worth the purchase. One point he makes is using a larger particle size powder to let the CA soak all the way through. He demos putting ultra thin CA on -325 mesh powder (the cheap stuff that I had posted about and the same from Douglas and Sturgess) and it forms a hard skin on top and does not soak to the wood. He pulls off the skin just like picking off a scab. He then puts the same ultra thin CA on -100 mesh powder that he sells, and the CA soaks all the way to the wood and makes the powder a hardened mass all the way through. I guess they want the finer powder to be able to mix with resins and cast out smoothly, but it must not work with the CA technique.
Anyone verified that? I did some searching on-line for the -100 mesh powders, and they are crazy expensive by the pound. I did find some cheaper, sold by fireworks suppliers, but it had a very wide range of particle size. Something like 5 to -150. I guess I could sift my own?
For what it's worth....
I've successfully used the 325 mesh powders with CA, BUT, I engrave only to a depth of 0.01". The CA doesn't have to soak very far. On the few times I've had deeper areas (like maybe 0.2") to inlay I've added the ca first and then the powder on top of that. It sank into the CA and worked for me.
I often inlay the metal powder mixed with PR. The smaller particle size works better for this.
The larger the particle size you use, the more granular the inlay will look. 325 mesh looks pretty good to my naked eye. (Then again, nobody ever calls me eagle eye.) It's not anything like a solid metal inlay polished to a mirror finish, but it's nice.
I don't inlay into wood anymore. Over a period of 10 years I found wood movement leaves the inlay proud or inset. Sometimes the inlay cracks. Metal inlaid into resin seems to hold up well.
Your mileage may vary......
Ed