Ah!! Someone else who has gotten the orange peel.
I am going to give this a try again today. I brought my bottles of finish inside last night, and its 70 in here. Wondering if the temp might affect viscosity.
GluBoost - coat count, thickness?
- Thread starter jrista
- Start date
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
I am going to give this a try again today. I brought my bottles of finish inside last night, and its 70 in here. Wondering if the temp might affect viscosity.
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Ok, an update. Tonight, I put some coats of both blue and orange on this blank. This is the pair to the cap that I tried putting a Danish oil base on, so this also has a danish oil base (I think that helps bring out the chatoyance in the end, although so far the best chatoyance was with a walnut oil base coat).
I did several things differently this time:
1. Used a new applicator I concocted: foam with wax paper glued to it. The foam clearly caused a problem on its own last time, but pure paper towel doesn't seem to be any better...the wax paper seems largely immune to the glue and doesn't seem to introduce any junk of its own.
2. Brought the glues and gludry inside last night. Its 70 in here.
3. Used gludry in the way Ed recommended over the phone (and I think also recommended by John U. and another member here): Sprits once on a coat, and then do several more before spritzing again. Also spritzing at a distance of ~15" on recommendation of the GluBoost team.
Humidity was not high, but not low, at 45%. It definitely wasn't near 70% and was not over 80%!
First few coats went on great. Lathe on, spinning, at 1000rpm. This may be too high, this is something I'm considering as a factor of my "grabby in 3" issue. I may drop the belt to a lower gear ratio. Clear, just a little bit of rippling. These were coats of blue. Did gludry on the first coat, not on the next two. With each coat, I just didn't seem to have enough GB on the applicator (used two small drops), it seemed to get yanked off the applicator and onto the blank in an instant, and usually only seemed to cover about half the blank. So each time, I had to put a bit more GB on the applicator and coat the rest.
Q1: What, exactly, is a "drop" to those who use GB? Maybe I am just under-estimating how much is needed here?
Next coat, also blue, started to get grabby in about 5 seconds. It grabbed a bit right at the left end...I let it spin, which evened out the lines a bit, but still left a notable mark at the very end, before I blasted it with gludry. Let it spin for a bit.
Did a coat of orange (thin). This stuff was off the wax paper applicator and onto the blank the moment they touched, and it only coated about a third of the blank. Spreading back and forth it got grabby in a few seconds, and still hadn't coated the blank. So I put...well, probably several drops on the applicator (and this stuff wants to drip off the applicator really easily) and was able to fully coat everything. Clearly too much, ended up with "beads" at both ends of the blank. I tried a couple of VERY quick dabs to try and even that out, which seemed to work. Quick blast of gludry.
Couple more coats of thin. Both got grabby fairly quickly. Maybe this is the gludry doing its thing, as others have mentioned, it seems to work through the coats. Still, watching people's videos, open time seems to be more like 10 seconds or so, and I'm at most getting about 5.
I am really wondering if my RPM is too high. I think before I finish coating this blank, I am going to adjust the belt and see if a slower speed helps. I'm curious, what speed do most of you apply with? That said, I did have problems with this stuff not spreading and getting sticky and grabby even with lathe-off manual application, so, maybe I am still grasping at straws.
FWIW, I had completely exchanged the air in my garage last night. I opened the front garage door about 6", then used my shop fan (which has a very high RPM and high CFM of air moved), to exhaust it out the back door. Just in case there was something wrong with the air. I gained maybe two seconds of application time, which with the need to reapply some drops of GB to the applicator each coat, didn't really buy me what I had hoped.
Ed @ Exotic Blanks has shipped me some new GB bottles. Hopefully, they will do the trick.
I did several things differently this time:
1. Used a new applicator I concocted: foam with wax paper glued to it. The foam clearly caused a problem on its own last time, but pure paper towel doesn't seem to be any better...the wax paper seems largely immune to the glue and doesn't seem to introduce any junk of its own.
2. Brought the glues and gludry inside last night. Its 70 in here.
3. Used gludry in the way Ed recommended over the phone (and I think also recommended by John U. and another member here): Sprits once on a coat, and then do several more before spritzing again. Also spritzing at a distance of ~15" on recommendation of the GluBoost team.
Humidity was not high, but not low, at 45%. It definitely wasn't near 70% and was not over 80%!
First few coats went on great. Lathe on, spinning, at 1000rpm. This may be too high, this is something I'm considering as a factor of my "grabby in 3" issue. I may drop the belt to a lower gear ratio. Clear, just a little bit of rippling. These were coats of blue. Did gludry on the first coat, not on the next two. With each coat, I just didn't seem to have enough GB on the applicator (used two small drops), it seemed to get yanked off the applicator and onto the blank in an instant, and usually only seemed to cover about half the blank. So each time, I had to put a bit more GB on the applicator and coat the rest.
Q1: What, exactly, is a "drop" to those who use GB? Maybe I am just under-estimating how much is needed here?
Next coat, also blue, started to get grabby in about 5 seconds. It grabbed a bit right at the left end...I let it spin, which evened out the lines a bit, but still left a notable mark at the very end, before I blasted it with gludry. Let it spin for a bit.
Did a coat of orange (thin). This stuff was off the wax paper applicator and onto the blank the moment they touched, and it only coated about a third of the blank. Spreading back and forth it got grabby in a few seconds, and still hadn't coated the blank. So I put...well, probably several drops on the applicator (and this stuff wants to drip off the applicator really easily) and was able to fully coat everything. Clearly too much, ended up with "beads" at both ends of the blank. I tried a couple of VERY quick dabs to try and even that out, which seemed to work. Quick blast of gludry.
Couple more coats of thin. Both got grabby fairly quickly. Maybe this is the gludry doing its thing, as others have mentioned, it seems to work through the coats. Still, watching people's videos, open time seems to be more like 10 seconds or so, and I'm at most getting about 5.
I am really wondering if my RPM is too high. I think before I finish coating this blank, I am going to adjust the belt and see if a slower speed helps. I'm curious, what speed do most of you apply with? That said, I did have problems with this stuff not spreading and getting sticky and grabby even with lathe-off manual application, so, maybe I am still grasping at straws.
FWIW, I had completely exchanged the air in my garage last night. I opened the front garage door about 6", then used my shop fan (which has a very high RPM and high CFM of air moved), to exhaust it out the back door. Just in case there was something wrong with the air. I gained maybe two seconds of application time, which with the need to reapply some drops of GB to the applicator each coat, didn't really buy me what I had hoped.
Ed @ Exotic Blanks has shipped me some new GB bottles. Hopefully, they will do the trick.
Alright, well...RPM may be a factor. I dropped my lathe down one belt position (was on the highest, now in the middle position). Used the lowest speed setting, which for pens, is pretty darn slow. Manually applying a few additional coats of thin, I did not need much at all, and it seemed to go on ok. I didn't seem to need more than about 8 seconds to get a few back and forth swipes in, and things seemed to clear up more and more each coat.
I still have a few blanks to test with. I'll turn off the existing finish and play with them more tomorrow, but hopefully at this slow RPM, I'll have the open time I need to use significantly less GB in each coat, and hopefully I'll get clearer, cleaner, smoother coats that don't need much sanding back (even this blank I just did, is going to need a decent amount of sanding to smooth out all the ripples.)
I still have a few blanks to test with. I'll turn off the existing finish and play with them more tomorrow, but hopefully at this slow RPM, I'll have the open time I need to use significantly less GB in each coat, and hopefully I'll get clearer, cleaner, smoother coats that don't need much sanding back (even this blank I just did, is going to need a decent amount of sanding to smooth out all the ripples.)
Todd in PA
Member
I apply at 500 rpm
rixstix
Member
Have you tried a 'non-wood- blank to see if time increases?
My orange peel appears when gludry is spritzed from 15 inches.
I know my glu boost is nowhere near 'fresh'.
Applied between 50 and 75 rpm.
My orange peel appears when gludry is spritzed from 15 inches.
I know my glu boost is nowhere near 'fresh'.
Applied between 50 and 75 rpm.
Ok, that's about half the speed I've been applying at.
Sadly, I accidentally yanked out the RPM readout line a few weeks back, tor off the connector. Haven't been able to figure out what kind of connector it used to try and fix it yet. I suspect I'm now very close to that, though. The manual (online, which doesn't quite seem to match my lathe, despite it being the 34034, same as the manual states) says the high range is 1200-3550 (mine is more like 1000-3600+), and the mid range is 600-1700 (I think mine is more 500-17000). So hopefully I'm in the right ballpark now. The current speed seems much slower than I was at, so it may even be more around 350-400RPM.
Hmm, I haven't tried any blanks other than wood. I could give it a try.
Do you know what your humidity is? Last night, I actually had some luck. I am not sure if it was a combination of all the things I tried together, or just one thing. Here are the things I changed:
1. Foam applicator (for mix of stiffness and flex) with wax paper bonded to it.
2. Colder glues and gludry (kept at 70F).
3. Used GluDry from 15", only apply every few coats of GluBoost.
4. Lowered lathe speed from 1000 to ~500 RPM.
Since lowering the speed of the lathe, it takes about double the time now to get sticky and grabby. I've been working in humidity around 40% +/- 5%.
Do you know what your humidity is? I DID have some days there where we had thunderstorms roll through, and plenty of rain. When it rained, humidity was between 67-80%. The way Ed talked on the phone, under but close to 70% is still not guaranteed to work... So, if you are working in high humidity, that may be part of the issue. When I had the worst of The Wrinkle, I think humidity was higher (I hadn't actually checked it that first day till later.) I think the other part of my problem, may have been lathe speed and maybe just heat buildup...
I do still suspect the two bottles I have, though. I'm holding out final judgement there until I receive the two new ones and have a chance to use them.
Finally, I wonder if there may be a "too low" lathe speed? At 50-75 RPM, how long does it take you to get the coats on? Additionally, what kind of applicator are you using? I am getting my coats on in about 8 seconds, or if I don't put enough glue on the applicator, its about 4-5 seconds for one half of the blank, then more glue on the applicator and 4-5 seconds for the other half. If I take longer than that, then things get sticky still.
I'm also curious...have you tried without gludry? Do you still get the wrinkle if you let each coat air dry? For me, air drying takes a while...so I let it spin for a few minutes. In my experience, a coat will go from shiny to dull in about 1 second or less if the wrinkle does set in, so if you sit and watch it, you'll know if it occurs when air drying. When you do use gludry...are you using it every coat? OR are you using it on the first coat, then coating a few more times without before using it again?
rixstix
Member
All is from memory since summer house projects are taking all my time... even finishing the exterior painting since the painter quit after doing all the easy parts. Winter indoor humidity is less than 20%.
I am definitely a neophyte when it comes to CA finish so trust others before me.
I had to buy a dehumidifier for our garage as the concrete floor sweats during the summer. Thing runs 24/7 during the spring/summer and parts of fall.
Makes a difference when I'm finishing pens or any other product.
Sounds like quite the journey. I wish you luck.
Makes a difference when I'm finishing pens or any other product.
Sounds like quite the journey. I wish you luck.
Contractors, man... I've had more than my fair share of trouble with contractors. Sadly, as a result, I do everything myself these days... Especially once I learned just how much of what they charge is labor cost. Built myself a deck and pergola, a big job and my first of its kind, when I learned that the contractor (who just bid with a single encapsulated number, and didn't break things down into discrete costs until I demanded he do so) was charging an EXHORBITANT amount of money for labor, and was also marking up the materials after he bald faced stated he was not. In the long run, rather than over $63,000 (mostly for his labor costs), I spent about $20,000 on a deck and pergola that went well beyond what he would have built. I never hire anyone to do anything anymore...I just do it all myself now. I had an electrician quote me over $2100 to install a new breaker, some romex, and a new outlet!! Ended up doing significantly more than that (several new GFCI outlets, as well as a 250V outlet, numerous new breakers, routing romex all over my workshop) with a bit of my own personal time and less than $400. I don't know when contractors, particularly general contractors, decided to value their work at 3-5x what it should be...but, eh, I can no longer bring myself to hire anyone for anything.All is from memory since summer house projects are taking all my time... even finishing the exterior painting since the painter quit after doing all the easy parts. Winter indoor humidity is less than 20%.
I am definitely a neophyte when it comes to CA finish so trust others before me.
Back to the finish:
So speed seems to have been a factor. I guess 1000rpm may have been heating the glue, not a lot, but enough to reduce the working time. I think heat may be a factor in general...my shop has been around 80 degrees most of the time I've been trying to finish with GluBoost.
I still think this particular batch of gluboost feels overly thick and sticky, and am really curious to see how the new bottles work. But, with a lower RPM, I've had more success. I don't know that I've reached what I've seen other people doing in their videos, I am still not really able to just wipe a small drop of gluboost very thinly onto a blank, rotating or not.
I'm still using more than I feel I should be, and I've burned through a lot of glue, on...at this point, I guess, 8 blanks, one of them just a partly turned, very long, flame box elder blank that is slated for a set of measuring spoons. So hopefully the next two bottles will go a lot farther.
Last night, I did seem to have good luck with GluDry. I was using a lot more than before, and I was NOT getting any wrinkle. The temperature was around 72, and humidity was 42%. That's the coldest I've worked with GluBoost and GluDry so far. Usually its been much closer to 80, or even above. I've also kept it all in the house when not using it, where its 70. I will say, the orange GluBoost, the "thin", still seems a lot, lot thicker than any other "thin" CA I have. My brother has a bottle of StickFast thin, and I have some Mercury Flex thin still, and both are almost like water. The GluBoost thin, however, feels much more like medium than thin from most brands. Not quite as thick as most mediums, but definitely thicker than the thin of most brands. Maybe that is by design, I'm not sure, but it certainly doesn't flow like other CA thin glues I've used. In turn, I wonder if that means the blue (which, isn't labeled as thick or medium really) GluBoost feels pretty thick, but, maybe not quite as thick as other CA's "thick" glues are. So I am not real sure what to think about the GluBoost glues from a viscosity standpoint so far. They seem misaligned with other CA glues...but then again, GluBoost is supposed to be something different than other CA glues, so maybe this is exactly how they are supposed to be.
The irony here is so thick!
Colorado is usually BONE DRY this time of year, in fact most of the year. Its been a strange year here...we never have this kind of humidity. I'm used to 10-20% humidity most of the time, with the occasional periods of 35%, especially during spring and fall. It is also ironic that, I prefer humidity around 35-40%...its nicer on my nose, and just feels better. Being bone dry all the time is rough. I think though, that 35% should be ok for finishing... At least, I hope. During the winter, I think things will dry out a bit more again.
So, I have been using Gluboost for about 6 months now. My shop is temperature and humidity controlled (I know, I'm spoiled). I too was experiencing the same tackiness and grabbing the applicator that you are talking about. I have a couple of theories, one of which was mentioned here.
I start applying the finish after turning and a quick smoothing sand of the blank and cleaning it. I think maybe the blank is still warm which might affect how quickly it cures? The other thing I noticed time after time is the first coat was not as bad but every coat after was worse. So, I think the accelerant has somewhat of a residual effect. I don't know if there is anything that can be done about that other than maybe waiting a little longer between each coat, but I am not that patient. It also seems if I try to skimp on the product on the applicator (it is pretty expensive as far as CA finishes go) and the lubricating effect of the glue isn't on the applicator anymore it gets worse as well.
I did learn that slower is not better. I was applying it at about 150 rpm. This slowed down how quickly I could apply it to the entire blank waiting for it to turn. I went to 600-700 RPM and immediately noticed an improvement and the finish seemed to self-level much better. I too was getting waves and wrinkles, and this eliminated it and resulted in significantly less sanding especially with lower grits.
In regard to the product, I used to use 2P-10. I have compared them back-to-back. The process with Gluboost is definitely faster and it's easier to work with. I get less ripples and ridges. However, I notice no difference in the finished product no matter the material used. So I'm in the process of determining if the time saves are worth the added cost of the materials.
I start applying the finish after turning and a quick smoothing sand of the blank and cleaning it. I think maybe the blank is still warm which might affect how quickly it cures? The other thing I noticed time after time is the first coat was not as bad but every coat after was worse. So, I think the accelerant has somewhat of a residual effect. I don't know if there is anything that can be done about that other than maybe waiting a little longer between each coat, but I am not that patient. It also seems if I try to skimp on the product on the applicator (it is pretty expensive as far as CA finishes go) and the lubricating effect of the glue isn't on the applicator anymore it gets worse as well.
I did learn that slower is not better. I was applying it at about 150 rpm. This slowed down how quickly I could apply it to the entire blank waiting for it to turn. I went to 600-700 RPM and immediately noticed an improvement and the finish seemed to self-level much better. I too was getting waves and wrinkles, and this eliminated it and resulted in significantly less sanding especially with lower grits.
In regard to the product, I used to use 2P-10. I have compared them back-to-back. The process with Gluboost is definitely faster and it's easier to work with. I get less ripples and ridges. However, I notice no difference in the finished product no matter the material used. So I'm in the process of determining if the time saves are worth the added cost of the materials.
jttheclockman
Member
All well and good if you have the skill to do the work yourself. Granted there are those that will take advantage of customers but this is where doing your homework comes in. labor many times becomes the highest part of an estimate. Just take your pen making as an example. You charge more for your time than the materials cost for sure. They have overhead too and cost for fuel and use of trucks and the tools and the list goes on. Can we do jobs for less, why of course because we are not counting labor and time. I use to like doing all things myself because I am doing them according to my taste and satisfaction. But as you get older you can not do the things you once did. I always wanted to make my own kitchen cabinets and do the renovation of kitchen and bath myself. It would have taken me far greater time than what my contractors did and in the end I was satisfied with their work including doing all electrical. I could have done that. Yes I paid a little more up front but after doing homework I found reputable people and they did well. You pay for quality always. Sifting through and using word of mouth helps narrow choices. Just use pen making as that example in your mind. Go to a show and 3 people make the same pens but one charges a little more but the quality of his work is better than the other two. I am sure you would pay that over just getting the same pen for cheap. Just saying.
The problem I have is that the labor costs have become so excessive, they are now out of reach of MOST people. I talk to my neighbors a lot, to friends, to coworkers. Every single one of them is in the same boat as me now: They all do everything themselves, because they simply cannot afford to pay contractors their excessive labor costs. The other problem I had was the blatant lies. Which again, is apparently something most of my neighbors and friends have faced as well. There is no longer any clarity or honesty in bids...most often we just get a single number, or maybe a small number of these obfuscated "bundled" line items. If you re truly an honest person of integrity, there should be no need to hide facts or obfuscate.
It is one thing to charge what you need to cover your costs and make some profit. I have no problem with people making a profit. It is another thing, to charge so much that you start pricing yourself out of your own market. In part, it seems that some of the issue is people moving in from other states with significantly higher costs of living, after selling say an apartment for a million or two, or a penthouse for millions, in say NYC. Colorado has had a massive shift in home values, where people are plopping down cash to buy homes way above their legitimate values, and still having a million or more left over from their previous sale. Contractor prices have gone up in part accordingly. There are deck contractors here who used to build $50,000 decks a few years ago who won't touch a project less than $250,00 nowadays. That is the cost of a home....for a deck. Problem is, its priced most of us normal, average home owners out of the market. I honestly don't care how skilled someone is. If I'm hiring an electrician, its a relatively mundane job to push a breaker into a panel, hammer an outlet box to a 2x4, drill a few holes in some 2x4s, and run and attach some romex wiring at either end. Again, it wasn't just the price here...it was the obfuscation and lies...this contractor tried to make it sound like installing a GFCI breaker was something particularly special and that it requires extra work and effort and particularly special parts. Further, he bundled the cost of the breaker into a line item that also supposedly included his labor cost and other overhead. When I asked him about the details, he skirted answering. When I told him I could buy the necessary breaker for $89 he scoffed and tried to tell me I was looking at the wrong thing (I knew EXACTLY what I needed before I ever called him.) He quoted $2156 for this very simple job, and told me he had worked some "discounts" into the deal...
I ended up adding 8 additional normal GFCI outlets, as well as a 250V twist-lock outlet, ran all the romex, and picked up the appropriate GFCI/AFCI breaker for the use case, all for a few hundred bucks. Even if I billed myself out at $50/hr, the labor costs would have still been a few hundred bucks more, and the total cost was still under a thousand. The problem I have is not just that the labor costs are excessive and unrealistic, but there is a factor of disingenuousness, obfuscation and lies as well. I actually DID pay an electrician to run the original cabling and install the new subpanel in my workshop. I paid a contractor to get work that was properly up to code, which I found out later was NOT up to code. (I also found out later that this guy's ratings had tanked when MANY of his customers had discovered the same thing...) Sorry, but, I don't like that. Don't care how skilled you are, all of that adds up to dishonest business practices and taking advantage. Which has become endemic in the industry...at least, around here. Finding a quality AND HONEST contractor has become all but impossible around here. Further, its largely mundane work and menial labor....which is different than artistic craft, which is what the kind of woodcraft we do on these forums generally is. If I can find a skilled, honest contractor, I'm happy to pay for them. Thing is, in my experience, an honest contractor doesn't start out with lies and obfuscation, and will usually charge a reasonable rate for his labor. On occasion I've been able to find such a man. I had a dead tree, girdled by bark-eating squirrels, that arborists wanted a minimum of $2000 to cut down, and more for the labor to remove and restore the fence it was near. I'd been told the job would take half a day or more. Had a nice guy drive up one day, knock on my door, and ask if I'd pau $300 for him to cut down that tree. I asked how much more it would cost if he cut up the trunk into pieces up to 2-3 feet long as I'd like to keep the wood, and he said no extra charge. I'd been trying to find someone to cut the tree down at a reasonable price for two years at that point. This nice, honest guy just showed up out of the blue one day and did it. He was done in less than 30 minutes. I was incredibly grateful for this exceptionally rare individual.
Maybe this isn't how it is everywhere else... But, its how it is here...good, HONEST, genuinely skilled workers are extremely rare. I have so many other stories about terrible, dishonest practices among contractors spanning just the last 5 years... Its depressing. The things I've had to go through, and eventually just end up doing the work myself because I simply cannot find someone honest? I do take issue with the way contracting has become this obfuscated, excessively priced, dishonest industry around here. I don't think pricing artistic craft is really quite a corollary to what contracting has become...we aren't taking (tremendous amounts of) people's money up front, only to deliver shoddy work in the long run. We put in 100% of the effort and cost in up front, in hopes that someone will come along and appreciate our work enough to compensate us for it.
Thanks for the insights!
Interesting about RPM. I think I'm now in the ballpark, and it does seem to be applying better. I was at 1000rpm before, I think I'm probably around 500rpm now. I could see how 150rpm might be too slow, as it might take longer to apply, which might allow the glue to start drying. At the higher rpm, maybe that was also helping it dry faster? Either heat from friction, or maybe just the amount of air flowing past the blank, or both?
Well, I am going to be doing more experimentation today. Hopefully 500-600rpm will help with getting thinner but better coats applied.
One thing I will say about GB is, when fully finished and polished, it looks much better to me than other CA finishes I have used. I have not used 2P-10, although I've seen it at the local woodcraft. I've used stickfast (mostly), mercury flex (second most), titebond, and some others. Sickfast in particular, is horrid for my health, and looks most like plastic. Mercury flex was better from an appearance standpoint, but it still looks like plastic. The plastic look is a real turnoff for me. GluBoost, however...wow, it is so beautiful. Ultra crystal clear, and I haven't needed to use as many coats, so its thin on the blank, and it doesn't look like plastic. Maybe 2P-10 looks the same way, but another thing about GluBoost is that it is practically oderless. I've been exposed a couple times, and just had a bit of a scratch in my throat...nothign close to the near anaphylactic shock I get when exposed to other CA glue fumes. So that's a big one for me...GB is a lot safer for me.
It could be that I just wasn't finishing the other CAs properly, or something. That is definitely a possibility. I may have used too many coats, or not sanded properly (I actually never used Zona paper with the other CA finishes.) So maybe they never looked as good as they could... In any case, I've been able to polish up GB so easily, and it looks so darn good (especially with an oil base coat on the wood first, dried, to bring out the chatoyance to maximum level) that for me, it is finally a CA finish that actually looks acceptable to me.
I did receive the new bottles from Exotic Blanks. Going to finish two blanks, one with the old set of bottles (already marked as "Suspect"!
) and one with the new, to see if there are any differences in how the finish applies.
jttheclockman
Member
Jon not disagreeing with you at all. The dishonesty is out there and always has been. Take auto mechanics that is probably the worse trade that can take you for a snow board ride if you have no knowledge. I use to do most my own auto work but again age has put a halt to that but when I take my truck in for service they can not snow job me because I do know what is involved. Same goes for doing construction work. But take the average person who does not have that background, they are the ones that are preyed upon. Plus a couple other points. material skyrocketed during pandemic and has not come down even though things are a little more normal. Then there is the too much work syndrome and this is where a contractor has too much work to handle but comes in with a ridiculous price and he did not care if you turned it down or not. If you take the price then he is way ahead of the game and it does become a game. Years ago I thought it was insane to charge $100 an outlet but that is chump change now. It is basically $200 an outlet now so you would not want me doing your electrical work either. Those are to start numbers my friend. You talk about combining prices. I just had my entire house done. First the roof, siding and stone work all combined one price. No break down in labor. Same with my bath and kitchen remodel this past year. All one price. Because they price by the job and not by the hour. They can not break things down. It is based on a job. If the job goes over in time they eat that. If it comes under then they win. They could come in with an itemized list and labor is real loww but they get into the job and some unforeseen problem arises and now you will get an extra bill added. They can do that and have all legal rights to do it. But then you get mad at that practice. Again I refer back to auto mechanics. Next time you go to dealer and they give you a bill for simple oil change it is one price but do something like investigate a noise or leak and they itemize the bill and the labor is way over the materials. How do you know how long it took to find problem. They can very easily pad a bill. This is why when doing any and I mean any work, get more than one estimate and compare what each contractor is saying and you will right away know who is snowing who. You fight fire with fire. Dishonest people have been around forever. Your Politicians make it sound as if it is a proud thing to do so the mentality trickles down. $50/hr as electrician I do not walk in the door for less than $100 an hour. Ask your doctor if he would take a cut in his pay next time he has to operate. Again just saying and trying to show you there are other sides to your story when you talk contractors. Remember too if they are self employed contractor there is many things going into a labor bill and not just physical labor. Insurance, health care, and savings plan and that is just starters.
I do not walk in the door for less than $100 an hour. Ask your doctor if he would take a cut in his pay next time he has to operate. Again just saying and trying to show you there are other sides to your story when you talk contractors. Remember too if they are self employed contractor there is many things going into a labor bill and not just physical labor. Insurance, health care, and savings plan and that is just starters.
Last edited:
Jon not disagreeing with you at all. The dishonesty is out there and always has been. Take auto mechanics that is probably the worse trade that can take you for a snow board ride if you have no knowledge. I use to do most my own auto work but again age has put a halt to that but when I take my truck in for service they can not snow job me because I do know what is involved. Same goes for doing construction work. But take the average person who does not have that background, they are the ones that are preyed upon. Plus a couple other points. material skyrocketed during pandemic and has not come down even though things are a little more normal. Then there is the too much work syndrome and this is where a contractor has too much work to handle but comes in with a ridiculous price and he did not care if you turned it down or not. If you take the price then he is way ahead of the game and it does become a game. Years ago I thought it was insane to charge $100 an outlet but that is chump change now. It is basically $200 an outlet now so you would not want me doing your electrical work either. Those are to start numbers my friend. You talk about combining prices. I just had my entire house done. First the roof, siding and stone work all combined one price. No break down in labor. Same with my bath and kitchen remodel this past year. All one price. Because they price by the job and not by the hour. They can not break things down. It is based on a job. If the job goes over in time they eat that. If it comes under then they win. They could come in with an itemized list and labor is real loww but they get into the job and some unforeseen problem arises and now you will get an extra bill added. They can do that and have all legal rights to do it. But then you get mad at that practice. Again I refer back to auto mechanics. Next time you go to dealer and they give you a bill for simple oil change it is one price but do something like investigate a noise or leak and they itemize the bill and the labor is way over the materials. How do you know how long it took to find problem. They can very easily pad a bill. This is why when doing any and I mean any work, get more than one estimate and compare what each contractor is saying and you will right away know who is snowing who. You fight fire with fire. Dishonest people have been around forever. Your Politicians make it sound as if it is a proud thing to do so the mentality trickles down. $50/hr as electrician
You know, I hadn't thought of the "too much work" syndrome... That probably is a factor. That said, the guy who quoted my deck came out twice, and we spent quite a bit of time talking. He mentioned he did not mark up his materials twice (and when I checked how much they would cost if I bought them myself, once he gave me his broken down quote, I found that he'd marked them up a minimum of about 50%, in some cases much more), and we got pretty deep into talking about his other work and how he did it. I thought he was quite interested, and since he DID break down the single-value original quote into various materials and labor costs, it seemed like he was interested. When I realized just how much he was charging me for labor, and then the realization he had lied about material costs, was when I finally decided to pass. Until then, I thought I'd be going with him.
I actually am aware that these projects tend to over-bid. At least here in colorado, material waste and "overhead" as its usually called, are supposed to be called out. When I had my roof done, it was all itemized, and material waste (which is generally standardized at 11%) and overhead WERE very clearly called out. Overhead was actually called out in a few ways. The contract also clearly stated that once they started tearing the old roof off, there was the possibility that they would find additional problems such as deck rot, and that could incurr additional costs and fees, etc. There was actually some additional work that had to be done. In the end, the insurance covered most of that, but all the extras had to be explained and covered before payout would occur. I also personally paid to upgrade a couple of things. But when everything is spelled out clearly and in detail, and the potentials are explained in clear terminology, then you are not surprised if/when extra costs occur, and if the contractor is honest, you can see what the issues were and why additional cost is necessary. IMO, this clearly delineated, spelled out, honest contract was PERFECT, and I appreciated the detail and honesty.
IMHO, shoving everything into a single line item is itself dishonest, obfuscatory, and pushes cost beyond the means of the average home owner because the POTENTIALS are usually preemptively baked in. I don't like that. Never have, never will. I do know its become a practice in the industry, but I think that has just lead to an epidemic of homeowner DIYers who are fed up with the obfuscation and dishonesty and are now just doing things themselves. And with an absolute glut of online videos, books, and code documentation on how to do things yourself (and when you start watching a lot of videos, you find that there are even contractors out there who prefer to work solo because of ethic, artistry in their work, a deep deep need for things to be done "right" etc. you find some great content on how to solve certain problems, logistics, physics, etc. in very clever and safe ways when doing things alone...this is something a couple friends of mine and I have chatted about a few times. There is ALWAYS a way, with or without help, when you leverage some knowledge of physics to get things done!) Well, there is little reason not to save yourself some money, expend some personal time, and do things yourself, to your own liking, when contractors aren't being honest. Interestingly, my roofer is the one contractor I have a good relationship with, and I call him periodically to do a drone flyover and check after hailstorms, or call him for referrals if I absolutely have to get a contractor (which is likely for painting my house, despite my desires to do it myself.)
Regarding hourly rate, it took me hours, most of a day (I had to buy some new tools, and find and buy all the materials, which took extra time). A pro should have been able to do the work of running a single romex line from a breaker to a newly installed outlet in about an hour. So assuming I had all the materials, had the tools, that any electrician would normally have, and I just had to drive to location, hop out, poke a few holes in some 2x4s, pop in a breaker, attach an elecrical box and pop in a new outlet, then run some romex, I'd be done in an hour. So, all told, at $100/hr, even $150/hr, the job WITH materials would never have been anywhere close to $2156. As you said...maybe the guy was overbooked and didn't want the job...but, in that case...why come out, meet me, look at my workshop, and bid at all?? I think I calculated that after knocking off about (at least to me, my off-the-shelf non-contractor) costs of ~$400 (not quite), the guy was effectively going to get over $1700-1800 for maybe an hour, perhaps slightly more, of work? Sorry...NO ONE in these general contracting lines of work is WORTH $1700+ an hour. Same goes for auto-repair (although my guys are quite honest, and even an oil change is itemized. I pray every time something happens to my car that these guys won't close up shop, as it took ages to find them, and I doubt I'd find any other honest mechanics around any time soon!) The surgeon is an entirely different deal (when you consider the sheer amount of training that goes into becoming someone like that, and the decade of effort that must be invested before you could even begin to pursue becoming a truly trusted, well-known surgeon.)
Its a very strange world now, for sure, when it comes to...auto repairs, construction, even getting your house repainted or some dead branches chopped off a tree.
FWIW, regarding "most people don't have the knowledge and background"....I agree. I did NOT have it. I had to learn, a LOT, to build this deck, make sure it was up to code (bought a darn code book for goodness sake), researched the engineering aspects of it and discussed with my engineer father, etc. I started this deck project back in May/June last year, when I first called out some contractors to bid. I eventually started it the beginning of August, and worked till it started snowing. I only just this weekend, finally finished staining it (rained a ton this year, which made staining really hard). I had to learn a ton of stuff just to build this one deck and pergola, and I'm still pulling up videos, books and codes every so often to check on things (still working on a couple of other aspects of the deck).
Further, I have several friends and coworkers, who ended up in the exact same boat. Contractor costs were WAY beyond their means. Each one of them has learned how to: remodel their bathrooms, kitchens, finish out their own basements, replace water heaters, paint their own house, do their own rewiring, etc. So, agreed, most people DO NOT have the necessary background...but, we are learning it, because we have little other choice, when faced with excessive labor costs and...well, all too frequently, blatant lying. Maybe that all does just boil down to "I don't really want this contract so I'm gonna **** em off and make em pass" from the contractor... My neighbor and I were just talking yesterday, and he is remodeling two of his own bathrooms, retiled another, replaced toilets and sinks in all of them, replaced lighting in all of them, and has also done some fairly extensive remodeling of his own kitchen (including paying a friend to pull over some new gas line so he could install a gas stove, as he despises electric stoves!) His main reasoning is contractors have all lied to him, and he's sick of it. Long term, that can't bode well for these contractors. People like me, my neighbor and my friends and coworkers remember the contractors who have been nasty...we won't be trying to work with them again in the future. Review sites are becoming stuffed with complaints about contractors (especially general contractors)... When the bottom falls out, and these guys suddenly find themselves without a glut of work...I suspect they may well find themselves without any work at all.
jttheclockman
Member
All I can say is good luck and welcome to the world of owning your own home. Stay young.
Well, today's update. Been playing with the old batch of glue again. I'm pretty sure its bad, somehow. Humidity started off at 25%, and I thought that would be perfect, that things should go swimmingly.
Well, one thing that has improved is that at the lower RPM, I DO have more working time. That said, this stuff is still drying dull and frosty. The coats are much thinner now than they were before, however I still don't think this stuff is drying properly. It starts out looking clear and shiny, but once it dries (either by the air, or gludry), its dull and frosty. I suspect at very close inspection, it would still be wrinkled, just at a finer scale.
This started at 25% humidity. That has increased to 34%, and a thunderstorm has rolled in. Still, 34% is very low. So, I don't think that I'm the problem anymore...I think there is something wrong with these bottles of GluBoost, or maybe something about these blanks, or maybe something about this peruvian walnut (I bought a board of it some time back, and have been cutting blanks out of it for a while now...maybe there is just something up with this wood???)
I haven't yet tried the new stuff from Exotic Blanks. I have another blank I'll be pulling out for that. Hopefully the new glue will be better. If not, then its gotta be the wood, or, maybe my hygrometer is bad, or something else environmental.
I will say, I am glad that I'm able to get on such thinner coats now. I felt I was using a heck of a lot of glue before. Now, I feel like I could at least be efficient with this very expensive finish.
Well, one thing that has improved is that at the lower RPM, I DO have more working time. That said, this stuff is still drying dull and frosty. The coats are much thinner now than they were before, however I still don't think this stuff is drying properly. It starts out looking clear and shiny, but once it dries (either by the air, or gludry), its dull and frosty. I suspect at very close inspection, it would still be wrinkled, just at a finer scale.
This started at 25% humidity. That has increased to 34%, and a thunderstorm has rolled in. Still, 34% is very low. So, I don't think that I'm the problem anymore...I think there is something wrong with these bottles of GluBoost, or maybe something about these blanks, or maybe something about this peruvian walnut (I bought a board of it some time back, and have been cutting blanks out of it for a while now...maybe there is just something up with this wood???)
I haven't yet tried the new stuff from Exotic Blanks. I have another blank I'll be pulling out for that. Hopefully the new glue will be better. If not, then its gotta be the wood, or, maybe my hygrometer is bad, or something else environmental.
I will say, I am glad that I'm able to get on such thinner coats now. I felt I was using a heck of a lot of glue before. Now, I feel like I could at least be efficient with this very expensive finish.
leehljp
Member Liaison
Jon
what is your altitude? what was the Temperature at the time the thunderstorm rolled through? I haven't had problem in a long time with CA. And yes, I know you are using GluBoost. But when I did have problems, it was around or below 75°F. Even dry with a cool breeze could cause the frosting. In my mind, and I am not scientific, I figured it was the heat of the CA curing and the cool of the air which would pull what moisture was in the air and frosty layers would appear.
Curing does cause a thermo-reaction of sorts; even a little humidity when the air is a bit cool (I suspect the dew point is involved), moisture is drawn and the frosty finish happens.
That is not ICE frost, but frosty layered reaction on the CA a few hours later. About 15 - 16 years ago when I was in Toyota City, Japan, only a few miles from the Pacific coast.
what is your altitude? what was the Temperature at the time the thunderstorm rolled through? I haven't had problem in a long time with CA. And yes, I know you are using GluBoost. But when I did have problems, it was around or below 75°F. Even dry with a cool breeze could cause the frosting. In my mind, and I am not scientific, I figured it was the heat of the CA curing and the cool of the air which would pull what moisture was in the air and frosty layers would appear.
Curing does cause a thermo-reaction of sorts; even a little humidity when the air is a bit cool (I suspect the dew point is involved), moisture is drawn and the frosty finish happens.
Imported Photo from leehljp
Imported Photo from leehljp. Please edit title and description.
www.penturners.org
That is not ICE frost, but frosty layered reaction on the CA a few hours later. About 15 - 16 years ago when I was in Toyota City, Japan, only a few miles from the Pacific coast.
Last edited:
It has been in the high 70s/low 80s all day. Thunderstorm is still here, its been raining a lot, and its still 76 degrees. Humidity has hit 50% now because of the rain.Jon
what is your altitude? what was the Temperature at the time the thunderstorm rolled through? I haven't had problem in a long time with CA. And yes, I know you are using GluBoost. But when I did have problems, it was around or below 75°F. Even dry with a cool breeze could cause the frosting. In my mind, and I am not scientific, I figured it was the heat of the CA curing and the cool of the air which would pull what moisture was in the air and frosty layers would appear.
Curing does cause a thermo-reaction of sorts; even a little humidity when the air is a bit cool (I suspect the dew point is involved), moisture is drawn and the frosty finish happens.
Imported Photo from leehljp
Imported Photo from leehljp. Please edit title and description.www.penturners.org
That is not ICE frost, but frosty layered reaction on the CA a few hours later. About 15 - 16 years ago when I was in Toyota City, Japan, only a few miles from the Pacific coast.
I was last out there putting a coat on about an hour ago. Humidity was 35% at the time, and it was around 80.
I have wondered the same thing, if the heat was causing problems.
You asked about altitude. I'm around 6000 feet above sea level. Colorado, in the wider Denver metro area. It is normally very dry here. Humidity is sometimes as low as 10%, and the baseline indoor humidity is usually 16-20% (what with AC and furnace going a lot of the year). Most years, we have a month or two where we get rain showers in the afternoon a lot of afternoons during summer. When those roll through, humidity can definitely spike, into the 80% range. Some, 20+ years ago, nearly 30 now I guess, it used to be that Colorado was much wetter. Like clockwork, 3pm or so, rain showers, from spring, through summer, into fall. Colorado was green through late summer. Interestingly, this year seems to be a lot like how it used to be back when I first moved to this state in 1997. It has rained a ton, since the end of winter, and through now, we get thunderstorms almost every day, and they will often dump rain for days. We usually get rain by 3pm or so most days, like it used to be. It's quite a deviation from the last...15+ years here? I'm so used to hotish (eh, 95-105) and dry. So, its been an unusual year in some ways, but also maybe more of a "normal" year as well, when Colorado isn't in a drought, I guess. So, being unusual since I started woodturing, its ironic that I started using CA glue this year.
Anyway... I'm working on rounding out a number of old blanks that I glued tubes into, but ended up not using. I'm going to be putting a GB finish on each, to see how different woods respond. The peruvian walnut is interesting...its pores seem to be lined with something shiny. They glint and glitter as you rotate the blank. I wonder if something about this particular wood is affecting how the GB cures. So, I've got some normal walnut, maple, oak, and a couple others I'm going to be experimenting with here, to see how it goes. Going to try each once with the old bottles, then turn that layer off and finish again with the new bottles, to see if there are any differences.
I've also been noting additional variables. Airflow...I had the shop vac on to suck up the fumes. I turned that off, thinking maybe that is causing an excessive amount of airflow over the blank as it dries. Interestingly, since doing that, I no longer seem to be getting this larger scale wrinkle, instead its just a faint frosting (a lot different from the photo you shared, though). Since turning off the shop vac, I seem to have more open time as well, even at the lower RPM. So, maybe airflow across the blank is a problem, too.
I've now been keeping my overhead air filter running at all times whenever I am working pens. Sometimes it goes off (has a timer) and I leave it off if I'm in the latter portion of a turning session. I'm keeping it on now, though, to keep dust out of the air. I also have this shop fan that I turn on to blow dust out the back door of my shop as well. With the often drier air here, dust very easily just gets suspended in the air and stays there, which has been a huge issue for my health. The air today has been pretty clean, though, and once the humidity rose I suspect that helps clear more dust out of the air.
Anyway...lot of factors to consider. I'm hoping that it may in part be a wood issue. If it is, then I am hoping that I'll have an easier time with some of these other woods. It definitely seemed like finishing the flame box elder last week, went a lot smoother. And the finish on that once sanded and polished was mind blowing. It may be the best looking finished blank I've ever made...and its kind of what hooks me on GluBoost...the pure clarity of it, when properly polished, and the chatoyance of the wood, is beyond incredible.
Update on new vs. old (suspect) bottles:
NOT A DARN BIT OF DIFFERENCE
Same exact behavior, either way. It is very clear to me now though that thin (orange), works a lot better than the thicker stuff (blue). Blue is thickening and streaking, even at the lower RPM, within ~3 seconds again, maybe 5 if I use an exceptionally light touch. New or old, the blue seems to get taken off any applicator (paper towel, blue paper towel, popsicle stick with wax paper, foam applicator with wax paper, strait popsicle stick) in an instant, and it is practically impossible to spread it around.
The ONLY solution that seems to get me a clean coat, is to apply a crapload of the stuff directly to the blank as its spinning, and spread it out with the applicator below the blank. That is going to make this an insanely expensive finish, though, as you have to use a ton of the glue to do that. Particularly BLUE! That stuff is a massive pain to work with. I don't know why it is so sticky, but once it gums up then its basically useless, and that happens at any rpm, in about 3 seconds. IF I manage to get a nice, clean, clear coat on, then I can apply other fairly clear coats on top of it...but getting just one clean, clear coat is nearly impossoble.
For either the new or old bottles, GluDry behaves the same. A very distant spurt half a second or shorter, from ~15" away, results in wrinkling with the blue stuff (pretty much guaranteed). The thin stuff seems to go more frosty, but it can also wrinkle. Letting either air dry, the final result is NOT a clear finish.
FWIW, humidity is 42%, temperature is 73ºF, lathe speed is probably around 500 RPM. Tried with every applicator I've got: White paper towel; Blue paper towel; Popsicle stick; Popsicle stick w/ Wax paper. Foam w/ Wax paper. Same general result with all of them, although the foam applicator seems to give me a little bit more working time if I absolutely slather it with a ton of the blue stuff.
It seems, for me, GluBoost is going to be a costly finish, with a start to completion time of at least 30 minutes (between fiddling with getting it applied nicely, sanding it back, sanding it clean and smooth with wet/dry Nortons, then sanding it shiny with Zona, then finally polishing Meguiars. This time does not include buffing yet...although I seem to be able to get a scratch free finish with just my current polishing (and I've been getting better and better results with that the more I work with it.) At the right light angles in the right light, I can still see some faint divots from sandpaper scratches. I may be able to work that out with buffing, which will likely push my time to finish to ~40 minutes.
I was really looking forward to a 10 minute finish...but, for whatever reason, that seems to be off the table for me. Further, I was looking forward to being able to use a lot less glue, with fewer and thinner coats...however that definitely seems off the table if I keep using the blue stuff. Maybe with the thin stuff...however, I haven't yet tried a finish purely with the thin as of yet.
I also accidentally dropped one of my tools on my rack of banks I've been working with. It gouged two of the finished blanks. I was kind of surprised. No scratches, but there were a couple of deep gouges where the finish seemed to be taken clean off. Different than my past experiences with other CA... Not sure what other people's experiences are with GB durability, scratchability? One of the things I like about Pens Plus is its basically immune to scratching. PP finished pens, especially softer woods, can get divots pressed into them, since its not a hard finish. But I've never seen the finish get scraped off, and I've never seen a scratch. That said, as the finish starts to go bad, it becomes harder and harder to work with, and it usually goes bad well before the bottle is gone (I guess if I made a hundred pens a month, I might be able to avoid that...but I don't have that kind of time as of yet!)
Since these two blanks were dinged, I decided to use them as scratch tests. I took my keys to both. The pure GB seems to hold up quite well, it did show some faint very fine scratches after a bunch of scratch passes. I tried strait up and down the blank, across the blank, and then just some random angled swipes. No strait scratches that I could see. Across the blank seems to be the worst. The various random swipes sometimes did scratch, but it was very fine scratching. The other blank was my GB+WO test. This finish is not as durable. The chatoyance is the best, wood shimmers like its gold. But, the finish, a mix of GB and walnut oil (at least up till the last two or three coats, which were pure GB) does seem to be softer. This was the test where the WO did not dry or cure properly. It scratches more easily, the scratches are more visible. It may be that I could use WO as a base coat to penetrate the wood, let that dry and cure, then coat with GB for durability, to get the best of both a durable finish and the perfect chatoyance. Will need to make sure that longer term (months, year) this particular blank does not show any separation of the GB finish from the oil, though. I've also tried with a Danish Oil base coat, for that same oil penetration. Will be keeping an eye on these over the long term, to see how they hold up, if there is any separation.
Well... Either I go back to Pens Plus, which would be a more cost effective finish (even with losing half a bottle...that would be $30 to finish, I'd say, 100+ pens at this point, maybe 120+ or thereabouts. So far, the GluBoost looks like it might finish ~20-30, at the current rate I seem to be burning through it. Mostly the blue, though...which just seems to require a ton to be slathered on in order to get a clean, clear spread before it gums up and gets nasty. If I stick with just the thin, then, I might be able to make it go farther. That's the next experiment, I guess. Maybe, maybe I can stretch it to 50 pens? Interestingly, its about $15 a bottle for this stuff. So, if I CAN get to 50 pens, then that means it would be $30 for 100 pens...which, actually, so far, would actually be in line with my Pens Plus cost? I honestly don't know if that is efficient or not, though...its been a spotty couple of years for my pen making. If I can really get into the groove here making a lot of pens over the next few months, it is likely that the Pens Plus would stretch significantly farther. Also not sure how far GluBoost goes for most people. I think I'll be lucky to get 30 pens out of a bottle on average.
NOT A DARN BIT OF DIFFERENCE
Same exact behavior, either way. It is very clear to me now though that thin (orange), works a lot better than the thicker stuff (blue). Blue is thickening and streaking, even at the lower RPM, within ~3 seconds again, maybe 5 if I use an exceptionally light touch. New or old, the blue seems to get taken off any applicator (paper towel, blue paper towel, popsicle stick with wax paper, foam applicator with wax paper, strait popsicle stick) in an instant, and it is practically impossible to spread it around.
The ONLY solution that seems to get me a clean coat, is to apply a crapload of the stuff directly to the blank as its spinning, and spread it out with the applicator below the blank. That is going to make this an insanely expensive finish, though, as you have to use a ton of the glue to do that. Particularly BLUE! That stuff is a massive pain to work with. I don't know why it is so sticky, but once it gums up then its basically useless, and that happens at any rpm, in about 3 seconds. IF I manage to get a nice, clean, clear coat on, then I can apply other fairly clear coats on top of it...but getting just one clean, clear coat is nearly impossoble.
For either the new or old bottles, GluDry behaves the same. A very distant spurt half a second or shorter, from ~15" away, results in wrinkling with the blue stuff (pretty much guaranteed). The thin stuff seems to go more frosty, but it can also wrinkle. Letting either air dry, the final result is NOT a clear finish.
FWIW, humidity is 42%, temperature is 73ºF, lathe speed is probably around 500 RPM. Tried with every applicator I've got: White paper towel; Blue paper towel; Popsicle stick; Popsicle stick w/ Wax paper. Foam w/ Wax paper. Same general result with all of them, although the foam applicator seems to give me a little bit more working time if I absolutely slather it with a ton of the blue stuff.
It seems, for me, GluBoost is going to be a costly finish, with a start to completion time of at least 30 minutes (between fiddling with getting it applied nicely, sanding it back, sanding it clean and smooth with wet/dry Nortons, then sanding it shiny with Zona, then finally polishing Meguiars. This time does not include buffing yet...although I seem to be able to get a scratch free finish with just my current polishing (and I've been getting better and better results with that the more I work with it.) At the right light angles in the right light, I can still see some faint divots from sandpaper scratches. I may be able to work that out with buffing, which will likely push my time to finish to ~40 minutes.
I was really looking forward to a 10 minute finish...but, for whatever reason, that seems to be off the table for me. Further, I was looking forward to being able to use a lot less glue, with fewer and thinner coats...however that definitely seems off the table if I keep using the blue stuff. Maybe with the thin stuff...however, I haven't yet tried a finish purely with the thin as of yet.
I also accidentally dropped one of my tools on my rack of banks I've been working with. It gouged two of the finished blanks. I was kind of surprised. No scratches, but there were a couple of deep gouges where the finish seemed to be taken clean off. Different than my past experiences with other CA... Not sure what other people's experiences are with GB durability, scratchability? One of the things I like about Pens Plus is its basically immune to scratching. PP finished pens, especially softer woods, can get divots pressed into them, since its not a hard finish. But I've never seen the finish get scraped off, and I've never seen a scratch. That said, as the finish starts to go bad, it becomes harder and harder to work with, and it usually goes bad well before the bottle is gone (I guess if I made a hundred pens a month, I might be able to avoid that...but I don't have that kind of time as of yet!)
Since these two blanks were dinged, I decided to use them as scratch tests. I took my keys to both. The pure GB seems to hold up quite well, it did show some faint very fine scratches after a bunch of scratch passes. I tried strait up and down the blank, across the blank, and then just some random angled swipes. No strait scratches that I could see. Across the blank seems to be the worst. The various random swipes sometimes did scratch, but it was very fine scratching. The other blank was my GB+WO test. This finish is not as durable. The chatoyance is the best, wood shimmers like its gold. But, the finish, a mix of GB and walnut oil (at least up till the last two or three coats, which were pure GB) does seem to be softer. This was the test where the WO did not dry or cure properly. It scratches more easily, the scratches are more visible. It may be that I could use WO as a base coat to penetrate the wood, let that dry and cure, then coat with GB for durability, to get the best of both a durable finish and the perfect chatoyance. Will need to make sure that longer term (months, year) this particular blank does not show any separation of the GB finish from the oil, though. I've also tried with a Danish Oil base coat, for that same oil penetration. Will be keeping an eye on these over the long term, to see how they hold up, if there is any separation.
Well... Either I go back to Pens Plus, which would be a more cost effective finish (even with losing half a bottle...that would be $30 to finish, I'd say, 100+ pens at this point, maybe 120+ or thereabouts. So far, the GluBoost looks like it might finish ~20-30, at the current rate I seem to be burning through it. Mostly the blue, though...which just seems to require a ton to be slathered on in order to get a clean, clear spread before it gums up and gets nasty. If I stick with just the thin, then, I might be able to make it go farther. That's the next experiment, I guess. Maybe, maybe I can stretch it to 50 pens? Interestingly, its about $15 a bottle for this stuff. So, if I CAN get to 50 pens, then that means it would be $30 for 100 pens...which, actually, so far, would actually be in line with my Pens Plus cost? I honestly don't know if that is efficient or not, though...its been a spotty couple of years for my pen making. If I can really get into the groove here making a lot of pens over the next few months, it is likely that the Pens Plus would stretch significantly farther. Also not sure how far GluBoost goes for most people. I think I'll be lucky to get 30 pens out of a bottle on average.
jttheclockman
Member
I see you started another Gluboost thread and I did not want to ask this question there so will ask it here. Evidently CA is a health issue for you and you seem to have a huge problem with Gluboost, my question is this, have you tried alternative finishes? CA with no odor for one, lacquer (if fumes is a problem they make waterbased lacquer) or polyurethane and again both oil and waterbased. All these are as tough and maybe even tougher than Gluboost and are not as temp and humidity sensitive. Just curious.
I have tried a lot of finishes. Aside from the Pens Plus, I've also done other friction polishes (including my own home grown stuff), wipe on poly, polycrylic, strait oils (left to cure for 30 days), Danish oil, etc.
I don't really bother with water-based finishes. I bought a bunch and tried them all a year or so ago, and I was NOT impressed at all with the results. I researched a bunch before using them, followed the application best practice guidelines, and every one has such a high solids count that they don't get good penetration, and thus don't really bring out the chatoyance. So water-based has been tossed off the table for me, for any and all purposes. I've been grossly disappointed in it in every case, regardless of the kind of finish.
Some of these were even officially sold as pen finishes. One of these is Craft Coat, which is actually a high quality finish. It is also water based, very high solids content. I keep trying to like it...but, so far, I am not liking the results. It just doesn't seem to bring out the chatoyance well enough, even when polished (and that is another problem I've had...a lot of the water-based produce very thin layers, and leave divots where any open pore grain channels are...which makes htem very hard to sand and polish in the end.)Most of these finishes end up matte or satin. With extensive buffing, MAYBE they pick up a luster. Which is ok, if that is specifically the look you are going for. Generally speaking, though, its not the finish I'm after 99% of the time. I like shiny finishes, really. Or rather, I like it when the chatoyance of the wood is brought out, and really shimmers and ripples and shines. THAT is really what I am after.
There are only two finishes I've found that give me the shine and chatoyance I'm really looking for: CA and Pens Plus. The Pens Plus, I think, goes bad slowly, and as it does, it just becomes harder and harder to work with. I also haven't been able to finish an entire bottle of it so far, which is a bummer given I seem to waste so much of it in the end.
CA is a problem, but, GluBoost is far less of a problem than others have been, at least as far as I can tell so far. StickFast is terrible for me. I will no longer go near the stuff. TiteBond isn't much better. Mercury Flex seems a little better, but its still a problem. GluBoost does give me a scratchy throat (was exposed twice the first couple days), but so far I haven't had a severe reaction to it. I am also now attaching a dampened cloth over the exhaust port of my respirator. Since CA cures with water, I'm hoping this will help cure and filter out fumes that get close to the exhaust port. I think this is a timing issue..when you breathe out the exhaust membrane is pushed out. It requires a certain amount of airflow back into the mask to pull the membrane tight again. I think this is the main reason I get exposed. I guess we'll see here in the long run, if GluBoost becomes a problem health wise for me or not.
There is one other finish I've considered trying. Spar Urethane. I have a can, been meaning to use it for a year, but last year was a real bust for my woodworking. So, it may have gone bad, not sure. This one particular video showed just how shiny a spar urethane finish can get, and it has a fair amount of uv filtering compound in it, so it doesn't yellow much (and in fact, it has a purplish appearance right out of the can). That is another key factor for me...I am not really a fan of the yellowing that most oil based finishes will impose. Some impart an extreme yellowing, which I am ok with for bowls and vases and the like, but on my pens, I don't like the color shift. Danish oil, I guess, may be one key outlier. You can get the "natural" toned danish oil, and it actually has minimal coloring. I'm ok with that, and when I want a nice satin sheen, Danish oil is probably my go-to for most wood things. I hear that it can be buffed well, however I don't know that it would ever produce the kind of clarity that Pens Plus or CA will, and thus I don't think it would ever bring out the chatoyance.
For me, I'd say that is really the big draw. With just a few coats, and a good polish, it brings out the chatoyance better than anything I have tried so far. Even other CA glues. Mercury is ok, but it still, in the end, looks like plastic to me, which was always a turnoff. Something about GluBoost, maybe just the way it polishes (and maybe I never polished Mercury Flex well enough, I don't know), it is definitely the chatoyance king. Particularly with an oil undercoat (which I'm still not sure about, from a long-term separation standpoint...experiments outstanding), the level of chatoyance I can get with GluBoost is off the charts, second to none. Not even Pens Plus gets me to the same level as GB+oil base. Even GB alone, can do a pretty darn superb job. I have some of these flame box elder blanks that I'm using for a set of measuring spoons. The chatoyance is mind blowing...
That's the main draw with GluBoost for me. Nothing yet compares, and its exactly what I want.
When I first started playing with it, and polished up a couple of blanks, I really understood why people rave about GluBoost. I guess, a little bit of risk from a health standpoint, is worth having BOTH durability, and astronomic levels of chatoyance.Interestingly, when I first used GluBoost (a week ago now I guess?) I was applying it the way I applied other CA finishes, with Application #2 from above. This worked, but it was really using up the glue FAST. Once I started seeing how little other people were using, and I was already a third of a bottle down on the blue GB, I realized this just wouldn't be a cost-effective finish, if I was using it that fast. That's when I ran into my issues.
FWIW, I am trying a different approach now. I've put on a whip tail applicator, and am progressively trimming it down, until I find the right balance of flow rate to applicator spread, to try and minimize any waste. This MAY be the golden ticket for me, and might get me what I want: Brilliant, crystal-clear finish that rockets chatoyance to the stars, while still being efficient enough to be cost-effective. Maybe I want to have my cake and eat it too...but, at the moment, it still seems a worthy goal.
I am not one to give up too easily... I may eventually, but, as long as I feel I'm still making progress, then I'll probably keep trudging forward. Hopefully my experiences will help others who might run into the same issues. Hence the other thread...to try and consolidate some of what I've learned here, into something more readily absorbable.
Last edited:
jttheclockman
Member
Jon I am not going to dispute what you said and your findings but do want to say I have been woodworking for over 50 years. I have made projects both lathe and flat work. Have used many finishes. I can say no FINISH and I emphasized finish because that is what a top coat is. It is not a product that gives off chatoyance as you put it. What that word describes is highlighting grains within woods. These are penetrating wood products. Oil products do that waterbase products will not. (unless waterbased stains are used) Now products like Danish oil is a combination of both. It is a mixture of oils, mineral spirits and polyurethane mixed and there are many other products that are similar but all have an oil base to it. What you are trying to describe is depth of a product. A finishing product like CA or gluboost are not penetrating products they are top coat layers. Same goes for lacquers polyurethanes weather UV protected or not. The finish I always found that will give you depth of field in the final look is Lacquers both water based and nitro. The more layers the more depth can be seen. Why you ask. Well it is because lacquer layer melt into one another and the properties become one. With polys they are individual layers and they combat each other in final look. The same goes for CA. This is why thin CA is to me a must when using CA because it is at least absorbed into the wood fibers. But after first coat that is it and then becomes a matter of layering. Same for Gluboost. Remember it is a CA. If CA is absorb there will be some change in color even though it is clear. Just the nature of wood. But to highlight the shimmer of wood grain there needs to be color used. Just wanted to give my points. If I am using a wood that has burls and other deep grains I will hit with an oil such as BLO and the top coat with CA. My CA of choice was and always will be Satellite City products. Never had a problem with it except when I step away from pen turning for lengths of time then the bottles dry. That is why I buy smaller bottles.
leehljp
Member Liaison
THANKS John for your write up in that paragraph. EXCELLENT! Your explanation of Lacquer (for depth) and oil based finish was were superb! While you did not mention "time", That is what keeps many from using finishes that take more time to cure. Personally I have known some great flat work talented people that want to finish a 40 hour wood work project with 5 to 6 hours of finish time.
When one knows the beauty of a good finish and what it takes, "time" is not an issue but simply a part of the process. Thank you for your contributions and sharing your knowledge!
I am marking this thread for that paragraph alone!
So, I think you nailed one point: The first coats of CA need to be thin. I agree with this! I use thin as my initial coats. I tried with thin and thick when I first started using it a week ago, thick doesn't bring out the chatoyance as well. Thin does a much, much better job, as it does penetrate. I have found that several coats of thin can actually penetrate, and I can see it getting pulled into the wood, before that finally stops happening.
I also mentioned that when I use an oil base coat, then apply GluBoost as the topcoat finish, that the chatoyance is better. Its not a huge difference, but I do find that the chatoyance is better with a base penetrative oil coat. I generally use Drs. Woodshop Walnut Oil. This stuff is almost totally clear, with a very slight hint of yellow. Regarding color change...I guess I should be clearer. There is a change in color in one sense...the darkening. That happens with any finish, yes. This darkening, though, IMO, is a matter of a change in scattering, not so much as the result of pigmentation due to the kind of solids in your finish. The way light scatters when it hits a "dry" piece of wood, sanded or not, is a lot different than when it has something else within the fibers...be it water, DNA, Acetone, or a clear finish. This is a matter of refraction, reflection and scattering, though, IMHO, not actually a real color change. A lot of articles and books will literally call this "darkening" of the wood, to differentiate it from a chromaticity change, though.
BLO, for example, imparts notable yellowing to woods. This would be a chromaticity change...a shift in the hue and maybe saturation of the actual color of the wood (when darkened, to be even more specific). This peruvian walnut that I love, for example, with just a clear finish, gets a real nice dark chocholate brown, and one that is very well correlated with the pre-finished color (which is lighter, but still the same hue, if that makes any sense.) With BLO, it shifts to a notably warmer brown, more like milk chocolate, rather than dark chocolate. So, just for clarity, this is what I'm trying to say when I talk about a color change. Not just darkening, an actual shift in color. Purpleheart will go reddish-orange or maybe brownish with BLO!! Can't stand that! With Drs Woodshop Walnut, however, it maintains its purple color far better. How much a wood may change color (not just darken, but actually change color) depends on just how much color the BLO has (some are much darker yellow to almost orangish, while others have a less intense yellow color, at least in my experience.) In my experience, save a few cases (such as with certain maple), the Drs Woodshop Walnut Oil doesn't cause a chromaticity change.
The other factor is how clear the finish is. How smooth, glasslike the finish is in the end. This is where the sanding, wet sanding, polishing, buffing come into play. Until I've got the CA finish to a supremely polished surface, the chatoyance does NOT show through well, if at all. It is only once polished that it does. And, it DOES. Really, really does. I'm not just speaking theoretically when I talk about how good the chatoyance with GluBoost is. Its mind blowing. I think this is in part because of how it finishes, in the end, once fully sanded and polished...not just whether or how much the glue is absorbed into the fibers.
This flame box elder is a good example of what I'm after, and what I've been able to achieve with both Pens Plus and GluBoost:
You can actually see some of the highlights in the fibers here. I do agree, that requires saturation of the fibers...GluBoost seemed to do the trick. I think a walnut oil base coat might make it even better, but this particlular blank polished up to a superb shine and the chatoyance, if you could actually see it in person, is off the charts. Its exceptional. This is just GB. To my eyes, there was no chromaticity shift in the wood. There was of course darkening, but, I have no problem with darkening. I just don't want wood like this to become even more orange, especially the parts that are supposed to be yellow. With BLO, a chromaticity shift would definitely occur, and IMO would hurt the color contrasts between the flaming red, and the natural yellows of this kind of wood.
Anyway...hopefully that gives some clarity to what I'm after. Darkening, ok. Chromaticity shifts, not a real fan, unless for some reason I explicitly want it.
I am quite intrigued by the fact that you DO use a BLO base coat. I've been worried that might result in delamination of the CA from the wood in the long run. If that is your standard practice, have you ever encountered any delamination? Personally, I prefer the chatoyance with an oil base coat, although in my case, I'd probably be using the Drs Woodshop Walnut Oil, as it is very clear with minimal coloration (its almost transparent like water, with the faintest hint of a very slight yellow.) If it is indeed safe to use an oil base coat, that's probably how I'll do things, as I do know that oil helps bring out the chatoyance.
Regarding lacquers... (Thought a separate post would be better.
) I guess I forgot to mention this before, but I have used them in the past. I finished a number of platters and a few bowls with lacquers a couple of years ago. Now, I don't know what particular lacquers you are using, and maybe that was my problem. I used spray on lacquers, and I found that it was an immense amount of work to get a lacquer finish to be clean and smooth and...nice...in the end. Maybe it was my choices...I forget exactly what I used, I think Watco, I forget what the other was. If I did nothing but spray on thin coats, the end result was this inverted orange-peel like surface (i.e. bumpy, rather than divoted). I had to carefully sand back and smooth out each coat, and then in the end had to do a lot of polishing work to really get a good finish with the lacquers I was using. This didn't seem to be an unusual experience, as I remember finding a number of videos from people who shared their lacquer finishing techniques and had to do the same thing (and it seemed just as grueling in their videos.) Sanding back the lacquer wasn't fun. I don't know why I got that orange peel like surface, and I tried changing the distance I was spraying at, changing the thickness, angles at which I sprayed, way I sprayed (with what motions, how much overlap in strokes, etc.), and in the end I don't think anything I did mattered. I also didn't feel the chatoyance really came out as well as any kind of oil-based finish in the end. This may well be due to the particular products I was using. I also never actually tried a wipe on lacquer... I guess, I've read so much that says wipe-on is hard to use, so I avoided it. Perhaps there is a wipe-on lacquer that works better? I'd be interested to know what kind of lacquer you've used and how you applied it. Was it thinned, etc.?
Thinking back to my experiences with lacquer...I honestly felt something was wrong with that as well. Kind of like my experience with GluBoost, it did not seem to apply the way I'd read about or watched in people's youtube videos. I tried everything, too...so many variables to see if I could get it to work better, and it just didn't. Again, maybe I just did something wrong, or maybe there is some quirky, weird environmental factor here? I am not real sure. Back then it was definitely drier than it's been this year...maybe super dry air wasn't good for a lacquer finish. Which would make the GluBoost struggles I've had even more ironic, if the opposite was true with my foray into lacquer.
Regarding poly and spar urethanes. The stuff I've been using is all oil based. As far as I know, you can get poly and spar urethanes in either water-based or oil-based versions. I tried some water based poly, back when I was exploring water based finishes, and didn't care for it. So all I've ever used has been oil based. The Spar urethane I have is also oil based. The specific type is Minwax Helmsman Spar Urethane, and its definitely an oil based product that penetrates deeply into the fibers. So, its not that its JUST a surface film finish...its definitely got a penetrative factor as well. My experience with oil-based polyurethanes is that the oil also penetrates, and the chatoyance is probably very good... I just haven't been able to get a super clear, shiny surface yet, which IME is requires to REALLY bring out the chatoyance. It just isn't as spectacular, if the surface coating of the finish is matte, satin or luster. A super-glossy surface coating is necessary, as far as I've ever been able to tell, to bring the chatoyance to the "exceptionally spectacular" level. It is not that, if the surface is satin or luster, you don't have any at all...its just that its not spectacular.
In the end, I'm a big fan of oil-based finishes for that penetrative, fiber-saturating factor, for sure. Unless governments completely outlaw VOCs and eliminate oil-based finishes as an option (and even then, I may well try to formulate my own!!), and I literally have no other options, I doubt I'll ever use any water-based finish. I guess I am not really a fan of pure surface film finishes either... I really do prefer how oil and wood work together, and how saturated wood fibers show off all their qualities.
jttheclockman
Member
Hank, this is the problem with today's thought process. Everything has to be a rush. Just look at the roads today.
Jon I am going to be honest with you. Your threads are just too long for me too keep interest. I know it is your style but I did pick out a few remarks you made. Believe me or not, if you find a method that works for you then by all means stay with it. I have no knowledge of Gluboost except what I read here. I have no interest and never will try it. I found my finish of choice as I mentioned. I do not battle with Humidity or temps because I work in a basement shop.
When you say yellowing, you will only notice this with white colored woods I defy you to see yellowing in any other colored woods. You see darkening because oil soaks into the fibers and they highlight the grains and if there are flecks in the wood as some woods have they just get enhanced. I do not use oils on white woods such as holly or aspen. BLO has no effect to CA as a finish. If you recall the big push here many times was to use BLO in combination with CA to get it to flow easier and to cause heat to dry faster. All and I mean all finishes and that includes CA and Gluboost need a curing time. Drying time is not curing time. When you use accelerator you shorten that time. To me I am not a fan because I believe it hardens the top portion of the layer and the underlying portion is still curing and drying and now you have trapped that portion and weird things can happen such as ghosting. Again I am reporting my thoughts and no science behind this but as I said I have worked with finishes before.
As far as polyurethane goes I have a liking for Minwax brands. For lacquers I am a fan of Watco as well as Deft both spray and can which I use with spray gun. My go to waterbased lacquer is Target Coatings EM6000 I will break out the spray gun if doing large projects. Even if I use Nitro lacquers. I like the waterbase because of ease of cleanup. The biggest thing as with all finishes is to learn proper techniques and like many things it takes practice. When using spray can lacquers or even polyurethane you need to adhere to instructions on can and keep the spray distance, the spray angle straight and the speed of which you apply at a constant. Takes practice. Pens are so small to do so hard to mess that up. Orange peel is the results of one or more of the techniques failure and if I were a betting man too little applied and too fast applying. Also too far away with spray can. When done right there is no need to sand or too even polish the finish. Polishing is a choice thing. I never did find a difference when I use CA or any top coat.
I will give you another option if you want to try and that is use Danish oil, one or 2 coats and when dried then polish. Some woods such as exotics will polish to a high shine. I do this alot when using rosewoods for my clock bases.
All I can say is good luck in your pursuit to that great finish.
Jon I am going to be honest with you. Your threads are just too long for me too keep interest. I know it is your style but I did pick out a few remarks you made. Believe me or not, if you find a method that works for you then by all means stay with it. I have no knowledge of Gluboost except what I read here. I have no interest and never will try it. I found my finish of choice as I mentioned. I do not battle with Humidity or temps because I work in a basement shop.
When you say yellowing, you will only notice this with white colored woods I defy you to see yellowing in any other colored woods. You see darkening because oil soaks into the fibers and they highlight the grains and if there are flecks in the wood as some woods have they just get enhanced. I do not use oils on white woods such as holly or aspen. BLO has no effect to CA as a finish. If you recall the big push here many times was to use BLO in combination with CA to get it to flow easier and to cause heat to dry faster. All and I mean all finishes and that includes CA and Gluboost need a curing time. Drying time is not curing time. When you use accelerator you shorten that time. To me I am not a fan because I believe it hardens the top portion of the layer and the underlying portion is still curing and drying and now you have trapped that portion and weird things can happen such as ghosting. Again I am reporting my thoughts and no science behind this but as I said I have worked with finishes before.
As far as polyurethane goes I have a liking for Minwax brands. For lacquers I am a fan of Watco as well as Deft both spray and can which I use with spray gun. My go to waterbased lacquer is Target Coatings EM6000 I will break out the spray gun if doing large projects. Even if I use Nitro lacquers. I like the waterbase because of ease of cleanup. The biggest thing as with all finishes is to learn proper techniques and like many things it takes practice. When using spray can lacquers or even polyurethane you need to adhere to instructions on can and keep the spray distance, the spray angle straight and the speed of which you apply at a constant. Takes practice. Pens are so small to do so hard to mess that up. Orange peel is the results of one or more of the techniques failure and if I were a betting man too little applied and too fast applying. Also too far away with spray can. When done right there is no need to sand or too even polish the finish. Polishing is a choice thing. I never did find a difference when I use CA or any top coat.
I will give you another option if you want to try and that is use Danish oil, one or 2 coats and when dried then polish. Some woods such as exotics will polish to a high shine. I do this alot when using rosewoods for my clock bases.
All I can say is good luck in your pursuit to that great finish.
Sorry. As a software engineer by trade, I type very fast, almost at the speed of my thought.
No obligation on you to read it all, for sure. Well, if the camera will pick up the differences, I definitely CAN demonstrate that colored woods change color. I'm also a photographer, and in years past I spent quite a lot of time calibrating screens, printers, etc. Color is a big deal for me. Perhaps I am more sensitive to color than others, maybe because color is a bit of an obsession, I cannot say. What I can say, is that I have most definitely seen color changes (chromaticity, not just darkening) with colored woods. FWIW, I wouldn't necessarily call it a yellowing, as depending on the wood, it depends on exactly what the end result looks like. Purpleheart, walnut, are a couple of key examples. But I notice changes in the yellow color of yellowheart, or the reds of bloodwood and redheart, some devastating changes in blue mahoe (a rare wood that I absolutely LOVE, which has a wide range of colors, that do not turn out well at all when yellow finish of any kind is used) etc. when using BLO. Actually, its not really just BLO, its anything linseed oil based. That includes a lot of the oil-based urethanes. Its really the stark yellow color of linseed oil. Purpleheart and the walnuts are probably the two most extreme examples.
FWIW, the Drs Woodshop Walnut Oil produces barely any noticeable chromaticity shift in lighter woods like Maple, or Holly. It does produce a shift, but nothing remotely close to any linseed oil based finish. I don't know what is done to this particular walnut oil to keep it so clear, maybe its just the amount of filtering. Mahoney's walnut oil, for example, is a brown color that can also affect chromaticity. Anyway...I generally prefer clear finishes, unless I explicitly want to "warm" the color temperature of whatever item I'm working with (which has never been the case with pens, but is often the case with larger turned items.)
For things like maple and holly, the clear nature of GluBoost should do better than even Pens Plus, which is still walnut oil and shellac based, so it does impart a bit of yellowing. I've finished a number of pens with maple, and the color change is very slight. When you have that very light tan colored maple, I hate to see that beautiful color vanish under the strong yellowing of BLO!!
This may well be true. I mentioned this in my other thread. Even without an accelerator, though, technically speaking this is true and normal for CA in general, as it is the upper surface of a coat that is in contact with moisture in the air. I've had the wrinkling/orange peel problem with GluBoost with and without the use of GluDry.
I may give it another try. So, the "Nitro" (nitrocellulose?) lacquer, is that generally oil based? Or just more VOCs? I honestly don't know if the lacquers I used before were water based or not. If they were, that may have been where some of my dissatisfaction came from. I don't care too much for a finish that only creates a surface film, without much or any fiber penetration. That was what it looked like, the last time I used lacquer. I guess I didn't realize it may have been water based.
I think in the end, after over two years playing around with a lot of finishes...I generally know what I like now.
So, I don't usually mess with a whole lot of finish variety anymore. For the most part, I think its oil-based polyurethane, Danish oil, this Drs Woodshop Walnut Oil & Pens Plus, and probably now GluBoost for pens. Oh, I guess another finish I use with larger turned items is Ack's Sanding and Polishing pastes, which are wax based. I may add this minwas helmsman spar urethane to the mix...guess it depends on how my experience with it goes. I used to have a whole bunch of other finishes, including a variety of friction polishes including mylands and shella wax, a bunch of different kinds of linseed oil based finishes, tung oil, lacquers, water based finishes, polycrylic, odie's oil, poly-x and other hardwax finishes, a number of various kinds of wax and pastewax finishes, eh, there have been others as well. Personally, having all that around ended up confusing and unruly, and after a while a lot of the oil based finishes went bad (and I just don't make enough yet to burn through that much finish!!) Its been nice finding a smaller set of finishes that I do know I like. I guess I've found certain brands as well, like minwax is a big one.
I do like Danish oil. For my non-pen stuff, its one of the finishes I use. It's a great finish. I intend to give buffing some small bowls I intend to finish with Danish a try, see how it goes.
I'm picky, I know that. I have particular goals. I think GluBoost will serve them...I just need to figure out how to make it cost effective. Thank you for your input. I DO appreciate it, BTW...maybe that doesn't "translate" through the number of words I use.
jttheclockman
Member
very good and I wish you luck and maybe some here can help with the Gluboost thing. Sorry I am of no help.Sorry. As a software engineer by trade, I type very fast, almost at the speed of my thought.
Well, if the camera will pick up the differences, I definitely CAN demonstrate that colored woods change color. I'm also a photographer, and in years past I spent quite a lot of time calibrating screens, printers, etc. Color is a big deal for me. Perhaps I am more sensitive to color than others, maybe because color is a bit of an obsession, I cannot say. What I can say, is that I have most definitely seen color changes (chromaticity, not just darkening) with colored woods. FWIW, I wouldn't necessarily call it a yellowing, as depending on the wood, it depends on exactly what the end result looks like. Purpleheart, walnut, are a couple of key examples. But I notice changes in the yellow color of yellowheart, or the reds of bloodwood and redheart, some devastating changes in blue mahoe (a rare wood that I absolutely LOVE, which has a wide range of colors, that do not turn out well at all when yellow finish of any kind is used) etc. when using BLO. Actually, its not really just BLO, its anything linseed oil based. That includes a lot of the oil-based urethanes. Its really the stark yellow color of linseed oil. Purpleheart and the walnuts are probably the two most extreme examples.
FWIW, the Drs Woodshop Walnut Oil produces barely any noticeable chromaticity shift in lighter woods like Maple, or Holly. It does produce a shift, but nothing remotely close to any linseed oil based finish. I don't know what is done to this particular walnut oil to keep it so clear, maybe its just the amount of filtering. Mahoney's walnut oil, for example, is a brown color that can also affect chromaticity. Anyway...I generally prefer clear finishes, unless I explicitly want to "warm" the color temperature of whatever item I'm working with (which has never been the case with pens, but is often the case with larger turned items.)
For things like maple and holly, the clear nature of GluBoost should do better than even Pens Plus, which is still walnut oil and shellac based, so it does impart a bit of yellowing. I've finished a number of pens with maple, and the color change is very slight. When you have that very light tan colored maple, I hate to see that beautiful color vanish under the strong yellowing of BLO!!
This may well be true. I mentioned this in my other thread. Even without an accelerator, though, technically speaking this is true and normal for CA in general, as it is the upper surface of a coat that is in contact with moisture in the air. I've had the wrinkling/orange peel problem with GluBoost with and without the use of GluDry.
I may give it another try. So, the "Nitro" (nitrocellulose?) lacquer, is that generally oil based? Or just more VOCs? I honestly don't know if the lacquers I used before were water based or not. If they were, that may have been where some of my dissatisfaction came from. I don't care too much for a finish that only creates a surface film, without much or any fiber penetration. That was what it looked like, the last time I used lacquer. I guess I didn't realize it may have been water based.
I think in the end, after over two years playing around with a lot of finishes...I generally know what I like now.
I used to have a whole bunch of other finishes, including a variety of friction polishes including mylands and shella wax, a bunch of different kinds of linseed oil based finishes, tung oil, lacquers, water based finishes, polycrylic, odie's oil, poly-x and other hardwax finishes, a number of various kinds of wax and pastewax finishes, eh, there have been others as well. Personally, having all that around ended up confusing and unruly, and after a while a lot of the oil based finishes went bad (and I just don't make enough yet to burn through that much finish!!) Its been nice finding a smaller set of finishes that I do know I like. I guess I've found certain brands as well, like minwax is a big one.
I do like Danish oil. For my non-pen stuff, its one of the finishes I use. It's a great finish. I intend to give buffing some small bowls I intend to finish with Danish a try, see how it goes.
I'm picky, I know that. I have particular goals. I think GluBoost will serve them...I just need to figure out how to make it cost effective. Thank you for your input. I DO appreciate it, BTW...maybe that doesn't "translate" through the number of words I use.
For your reading pleasure.
https://www.thewoodworkplace.com/wa...in linseed oil formulations – Science Direct
Last edited:
Thanks for the link. Learned something I did not know about walnut oil:
"Better yet, this clear finish won't yellow as it ages."
That's excellent!
Thought I would provide an update here. I have found an application approach for GluBoost that works for me.
It is kind of a hybrid approach, but it works, and it seems like the vast majority of the glue gets on the blank, and stays on, rather than gumming up any kind of applicator. I combined the approaches of using a foam applicator, with glue on the foam, with a directly applying glue to the blank.
With this approach, gludry seems to work. I don't seem to have to worry about it. Maybe before I was either having the problem of just too darn much glue (i.e. when applying direct to blank WITHOUT a whiptail), hence "The Wrinkle", or too little or it was too gummy (when applying glue to applicator them applicator to blank)...and once gummed up, it just doesn't seem to behave right.
With glue on the applicator, a small drop of glue pretty much instantly gets onto the blank, and then there is nothing left to really lubricate teh applicator. I suspect that then causes friction, which increases heat (and right at the point of contact, it is entirely possible that the heat is VERY HIGH, even though I can't feel it so much through the applicator which does get warm), and I think that ruins the glue. Its a hypothesis, anyway. With this new approach, the vast majority of the glue gets on the blank, so even though there is a small flow of glue from the bottle at all times, none is really being wasted. I'd say 95% or more of it gets on the blank...probably more, as there is just a small thin band of glue left on teh applicator after pulling it away.
With this approach, if the applicator starts to grab, you can readily see where (the fine shine line gets broken where the applicator sticks and drags), so you can just put a drop of glue from the bottle right there, and keep spreading. Buildup is pretty fast with this approach. The coats are not necessarily thin, but I don't think they are particularly thick unless I purposely make them so. I have also found that with this approach, since I control where on the blank the glue goes, I can even out peaks and valleys if for whatever reason any ended up in teh blank. Or I can build up the ends if I accidentally over-turn them.
The main issue I have right now, now that I've resolved applying the glue finish to the blank, is the amount of overturning I'm doing. I seem to overturn too much, so, I am still having to put on a pretty darn thick finish, which starts to take on that slightly plastic look that I'm not entirely a fan of. So, I need to dial that in, overturn less (maybe just a few thousandths or so), which should give me the kind of finish I was getting early on, the clear glasslike finish I really love. Should save me even more glue as well.
Anyway. Thought if anyone else ran into any problems, this might help.
Oh, and FWIW, humidity today (I've finished three sets of blanks and am working on two more) is about 35%. A week or so ago, I applied this finish at just 19%, and still got "The Wrinkle"...so I'm quite sure that isn't related to humidity at all. I think I was still getting too much glue on the blank in that case, so GluDry was sucking out whatever it catalyzes too fast, and I was getting the previously exhibited wrinkled surface. Its actually raining outside now (started as I wrote this), so humidity will probably jump again. Outside humidity in my backyard looks like 67%. So, we'll see how it goes with the next couple of pens, but, I think this more controlled approach of applying just a very controlled amount of glue at a time avoids the problems I was having before.
It is kind of a hybrid approach, but it works, and it seems like the vast majority of the glue gets on the blank, and stays on, rather than gumming up any kind of applicator. I combined the approaches of using a foam applicator, with glue on the foam, with a directly applying glue to the blank.
- Handheld applicator is made of foam from a sheet, with a sheet of wax paper glued to it.
- I glued the two together with contact cement. Not sure if this is the best option, as it seems to get brittle when totally dry, but it is super fast and easy. Some other form of glue may be better...something with some flex? I picked up some modgepodge, and will give that a try.
- I apply a very thin line of GB to the applicator just for some starting librication.
- I use whiptail applicators with the GluBoost bottles to apply directly to the blank.
- Without a whiptail, the rate at which glue comes out of the bottle is much too high, and that was part of my problems previously I believe.
- I trim down the whiptail little by little, until the flow rate of the glue onto the blank is just enough to wet the blank, without overloading it. This is CRITICAL, too little and the applicator will start to stick, too much and then the glue gets really janky (it just doesn't dry right, I think.)
With this approach, gludry seems to work. I don't seem to have to worry about it. Maybe before I was either having the problem of just too darn much glue (i.e. when applying direct to blank WITHOUT a whiptail), hence "The Wrinkle", or too little or it was too gummy (when applying glue to applicator them applicator to blank)...and once gummed up, it just doesn't seem to behave right.
With glue on the applicator, a small drop of glue pretty much instantly gets onto the blank, and then there is nothing left to really lubricate teh applicator. I suspect that then causes friction, which increases heat (and right at the point of contact, it is entirely possible that the heat is VERY HIGH, even though I can't feel it so much through the applicator which does get warm), and I think that ruins the glue. Its a hypothesis, anyway. With this new approach, the vast majority of the glue gets on the blank, so even though there is a small flow of glue from the bottle at all times, none is really being wasted. I'd say 95% or more of it gets on the blank...probably more, as there is just a small thin band of glue left on teh applicator after pulling it away.
With this approach, if the applicator starts to grab, you can readily see where (the fine shine line gets broken where the applicator sticks and drags), so you can just put a drop of glue from the bottle right there, and keep spreading. Buildup is pretty fast with this approach. The coats are not necessarily thin, but I don't think they are particularly thick unless I purposely make them so. I have also found that with this approach, since I control where on the blank the glue goes, I can even out peaks and valleys if for whatever reason any ended up in teh blank. Or I can build up the ends if I accidentally over-turn them.
The main issue I have right now, now that I've resolved applying the glue finish to the blank, is the amount of overturning I'm doing. I seem to overturn too much, so, I am still having to put on a pretty darn thick finish, which starts to take on that slightly plastic look that I'm not entirely a fan of. So, I need to dial that in, overturn less (maybe just a few thousandths or so), which should give me the kind of finish I was getting early on, the clear glasslike finish I really love. Should save me even more glue as well.
Anyway. Thought if anyone else ran into any problems, this might help.
Oh, and FWIW, humidity today (I've finished three sets of blanks and am working on two more) is about 35%. A week or so ago, I applied this finish at just 19%, and still got "The Wrinkle"...so I'm quite sure that isn't related to humidity at all. I think I was still getting too much glue on the blank in that case, so GluDry was sucking out whatever it catalyzes too fast, and I was getting the previously exhibited wrinkled surface. Its actually raining outside now (started as I wrote this), so humidity will probably jump again. Outside humidity in my backyard looks like 67%. So, we'll see how it goes with the next couple of pens, but, I think this more controlled approach of applying just a very controlled amount of glue at a time avoids the problems I was having before.
Latest pen finish. Looking pretty good so far with three coats of the orange, and 4 or 5 of the blue. According to my calipers I still need a bit more (overturned this one too much...gotta work on that...) to get back up to the specified diameter of 0.482", but I'm almost there.