PDA

View Full Version : penetrating epoxy test results



paul oman
08-07-2003, 08:14 PM
Hello everyone:

In a previous thread about a week ago I suggested testing penetrating epoxies in unpacked
sand (using the sand to represent porous, damp wood). Size/mass of resulting sand "lump" would
be a measure of penetration.

I did the tests and have the results - pretty much what common sense would suggest:

tested 4 differnent 'products':

A - I used CPES (which is 70% solvent, and 30% epoxy)

B - ESP 155 (our own penrating epoxy which is 25% solvent and 75% epoxy)

C - ESP 155 thinned with additional solvent to a solvent level of about 70%

D - Unthinned low viscosity solvent free epoxy.

Results

CPES lumps (two tests) were in the 75-80 gram mass
ESP 155 was in the 60-65 gram range
ESP with extra solvent was in the 70-75 gram range
unthinned epoxy was in the 50-55 gram range.

The higher % epoxy products (ESP 155, and unthinned epoxy) were smaller in size and mass, but solid blocks of
sand/epoxy that did not break apart with modest hammer blows.

The higher % solvent products (CPES and ESP 155 with extra solvent) had bigger block size
but these blocks crumbled pretty easily.

Again, pretty much as you would suspect. Extra solvent aids penetration but the trade off is 'strength'
of the penetrated area which has to do with the amount of epoxy left behind by the solvent.

I will get the above info posted on a web page within a few days.

thanks everyone

paul oman
www.epoxyproducts.com/marine.html (http://www.epoxyproducts.com/marine.html)

Steve Paskey
08-07-2003, 08:34 PM
I'm sorry to say this Paul, but in my opinion the above post, coupled with a link to your web site, violates the WB forum's policy against self-promotion.

In flipping through the archives, I found other posts from you that strike me as self-promotion, including one where you suggested that someone interested in purchasing small quantities of graphite, etc., could buy it from you.

It's not that I don't appreciate what you're doing or your expertise, but I think you've crossed the line and should take a step back. There are plenty of business people of various sorts on the forum (Todd Bradshow and John Welsford, for instance) who share their expertise without engaging in self-promotion. You should try to follow their lead.

[ 08-07-2003, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Steve Paskey ]

thechemist
08-07-2003, 09:16 PM
This is ridiculous.

Paul, you should buy magazine advertising for this sort of stuff, or do direct mail. Besides, this is incompetent science. As Norm pointed out in another thread, it is of interest to those of us building boats of sand.

I have sent this to Scot.

One last thing, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Negative advertising attracts only the small percentage of the population who is inherently critical of others, and actually repels the majority.

Instead of trying to promote your business by telling the public what is wrong with someone else's stuff, try telling the public what is right or good or excellent about your stuff. That attracts the MUCH LARGER potion of the public who has a positive outlook on life and is interested in positive things, and who is repelled by people attacking others.

Boatbuilder is an inexpensive publication in which to advertise, and is widely read. Go to boat shows, get a booth and promote that way. Buy the mailing list of publications and mail flyers to those names. West Marine, for example, rents their customer list. That is a much better way to get started.

Gary E
08-07-2003, 09:28 PM
Steve,
You say your sorry? ..BS
You just dont like someone who is trying to help the many ppl here to come to some sort of opinion on whether CPES (which is promoted by so many here as the be all end all miricle cure for everything) actuall does what the promoters say it does. Why do you want stop all testing of somewhat questionable materials and procedures? if you dont like it, dont read it.

G

Art Read
08-08-2003, 03:57 AM
Funny thing is... Of all the people questioning the effectivness and/or price of CPES, I can't recall many admitting they've ever REALLY used it. (On their boats I mean, not a lump of sand.) And the most frequently heard criticism seems to always revert back the old 70 - 30% thing, or perhaps lack of strength. :confused:

It ain't "epoxy", folks, at least not in the way most of you seem to want to pigieon hole it. It's just a REALLY good primer/sealer. Period. Pricy, but VERY effective. It'll make your paint or varnish go on easier and hold better. When it's time to strip your finish, it goes away too. Thinned "regular" epoxy AIN'T the same stuff. I've tried it.

What's the "controversy"?

Get over it.

Sheese....

Russell Sova
08-08-2003, 05:27 AM
Paul, you,re fired. Clear out of your office and take your snootie attitude with it. Be out by tommorrow or I'll...well I'll cross that bridge whenI come to it. Come to think of it I've crossed too many bridges already so I'll go by sea. Or is that two if by sea? Well anyway clear out by tommorrow, but leave your chair. And leave your desk, too. Just let my secratary know your going. And I might need another secratary so hire one before you leave.... G. Marx

Dave Carnell
08-08-2003, 05:43 AM
Paul's science is at least as good as using balsa wood to test epoxy penetration, and far better than Smith's snake oil hokum of claiming wood properties for chemical molecules derived from wood. It does kind of resemble academic experimentation, though in a 40-year career in industrial chemical research I have seen some similar.

Scott Rosen
08-08-2003, 06:29 AM
It seems that point of most of Paul's posts is to promote his epoxies over CPES, as being almost as effective for a lower price. Paul, if your science were good, I could cut you some slack. But your experiments, on sand and sponges, don't translate to real-world boat conditions.

I'm not a scientist or an engineer, but I can see the problem with taking glued sand and trying to extrapolate the results to decayed wood. If I had a piece of wood that was so rotten that it was the texture of sand (or was as soft and porous as a sponge), I wouldn't be trying to restore it--I'd be vaccuuming it out of my boat and replacing it with new wood. If I wanted to glue a pile of sand into a solid mass, I wouldn't use CPES or a thinned epoxy.

I have used CPES on mildly to moderately decayed lumber and plywood, and it does what Smith says. It restores the strength and checks the further growth of rot. I've used it as a primer for paint on sound wood, and it gives incredible adhesion, just as Smith says.

I have not tried to create my own CPES just to save a couple of bucks, so I can't say if thinned WEST System or MAS, for example, would also work. If someone else had some convincing science that showed a cheaper way to achieve the same result, I would use the cheaper way.

I also respect Dave C's work. Despite his nasty comments about Smith and zingers directed at Chemist, I don't think he and Smith and Chemist differ on many things. Dave's writings are directed at killing rot, not restoring strength to rotten wood. Chemist has never disputed the ability of EG to kill rot, but he has commented on the toxicity and danger of it and has questioned its affect on glue strength.

DavesFlatsBoat
08-08-2003, 08:32 AM
In the word's of Sargeant Hulka, "Lighten Up, Francis!!"

A test was proposed, a test was conducted, test results were shared....thanks Paul.

The design and reported results were clear enough for most to understand.

Disclaimer: I get my epoxy from the nicest crew in the South - Fiberglass Coatings

Tom Lathrop
08-08-2003, 08:43 AM
There seem to be some high horses here.

I have no problem with Paul's post and hope Scott doesn't either. I don't find it to be "shameless self promotion" and he does not hide the fact that he sells the stuff. The fact that it may or may not be good science is in keeping with a lot of stuff on this forum.

There should be limits to this sort of thing though I don't think Paul went that far.

As a group, we will severely limit our access to knowlege if we rule out comments from everyone about the business they are in.

Can boatbuilders talk about their experience in their field?

Can lawyers give lawyerly advice?

Chemists?

Lumber dealers?

Doctors?

Indian chiefs?

Rediculous, take a 10 minute break.

Wayne Jeffers
08-08-2003, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Art Read:
. . . It's just a REALLY good primer/sealer. Period. Pricy, but VERY effective. . . . Art,

I see no reason to dispute the claim that CPES is a good primer/sealer. My objection is that Smith and Co. does not market CPES as a primer/sealer.

Smith and Co. markets CPES to restore deteriorated wood. Period. http://www.smithandcompany.org/

They would have me believe that with CPES and a companion product (FILL-IT, for plugging the gaps where the wood has completely rotted away) will return rotted wood to like-new properties. http://www.smithandcompany.org/6piece.htm No, thanks. Any rotted wood should be replaced, IMO.

And I agree with Dave Carnell's characterization of the claim that CPES is more compatible with wood because the molecules were somehow derived from wood as "hokum." I generally don't buy products from people who insult my intelligence. And I fail to see why any other thin epoxy product, further reduced by additional solvent, would not perform similarly to CPES as a primer/sealer and at a much lower cost.

I note at Smith and Co.'s site they have very recently (from the web counter, it appears that I was just the 16th person to visit the site) introduced a new product, MultiPrime, which is apparently CPES under a new name, now marketed as a primer/sealer. Interestingly, due to California limits on VOC's they offer a reduced solvent version (55% VOC) for sale in California. They note that the California version is considered a "sanding sealer." http://www.smithandcompany.org/mprime/

Wayne

Scott Rosen
08-08-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Tom Lathrop:
I have no problem with Paul's post and hope Scott doesn't either.I do have a problem for one reason. Paul is the only one who is promoting his own products, so we don't get the benefit of full and open exchange of ideas between product sellers.

For example, it's pretty clear to me that Chemist and others make and/or sell products to the boating trade. They are exercising a great deal of self-restraint (not shown by Paul) in an effort to comply with Forum rules.

What I would like to see is an open discussion and exchange of information between, say, Chemist, Dave C. and Paul, in which they were free to use their own products and research in support of their claims. That would give me the best opportunity to assess the competing claims. But the Forum rules would have to be changed first.

On Vacation
08-08-2003, 11:47 AM
Scott, I feel a section for builders is overdo for as much as many have to tip toe around. Look at the many posts concerning designs of different people. I feel it could be an asset to the many questions to what type or how a type should and could be used. In product lines, if you don't check in from day to day, many sustance posts are scattered thoughout the many sections and threads, and many folks don't get the maximun benefit from some true knowledge on here.my .02 cents worth.

Venchka
08-08-2003, 11:50 AM
Speaking only on the subject of cost:

Based on Hamilton Marine's catalog prices for Petit paints and varnish (selected because I have the catalog here at my desk) we have-

EasyPoxy paint ......................$73-$79/GAL.
Varnish ...................................$71/GAL.
Internet High priced CPES ..$75/GAL. in gallon cans
My local price CPES ............$65/GAL. in quart cans

CPES is in the same price range as the marine finishes applied over it.

Wayne Jeffers
08-08-2003, 12:40 PM
Wayne,

Further on price: Fiberglass Coatings, Inc.'s Penetrating Epoxy is $61.00/2 gallons in gallon cans ($30.50/gallon,) or $39.80/gallon in quart cans.

Scott,

To me, Paul's mention of his own products is extremely peripheral to his posts and not objectionable. If I object to anything in Paul's posts, it would more likely be his inclusion of a link to his commercial web site in his signature. That is a little overtly commercial.

But it's an open secret that many here are involved in the industry. Virtually all of them include their e-mail in their profile. Some include commercial information on the web site posted in their profile. I've corresponded with a number of them off-forum for commercial reasons and I'm sure I will do so again in the future. Happily, we are not plagued by overtly commercial posts, as is the case in a few other forums (fora?) that I participate in.

Wayne

[ 08-08-2003, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Wayne Jeffers ]

ion barnes
08-08-2003, 12:48 PM
Are we shooting the messenger or the messenger's cedentials?

There are many people on this forum with expertice on many sujects, but in the final judgement, its the lone individual that has to decide what fits their problem.

What if an unknown individual proposed Paul's test, without the credentials. Would he been ridiculed to the same extent? I dont think so.

I like Paul's experiment because it removes wood fiber from the problem. Go out and find a piece of deteriorated lumber in your yard. Half rotten or worse. 2x4 or plywood, and hit it with a hammer of your choosing. How far are you going to get in demolishing it? The wood fiber does a wonderfull job of holding it together - without epoxy! So how are you going to test the epoxy's value to the test. Sand sounds good to me as it has no linking structure.

Before I sign off here, I would like to comment that, maybe six months ago, someone made an enquiry on this forum about Mazda rotary engines, and a rep of a company that deals with rotary engines gave us a detailed overview. He was not put down in any way.

Thanks Paul, your simple experiment validates what I have been told before and should encourage further investigation. Ion

seawolf
08-08-2003, 01:04 PM
Steve's earlier comment is accurate. I read much
of what is posted in this Forum and I can say
I have found many of Pauls postings borderline
advertising for his business and as such, that is
in clear violation of the ground rules. If we close our eyes to this; where does it stop?? This has been going on for far too long.
Paul; if you are a smart guy, I suggest you acknowledge your small error in judgement and with that we can all move on to more productive and less "porous" discussions.
And, regarding the sand test; come on, we are working with wood and in some cases, epoxy.
Sand is best left on the beach.
Cheers
the wolf

Scott Rosen
08-08-2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by seawolf:
Paul; if you are a smart guy, I suggest you acknowledge your small error in judgement and with that we can all move on to more productive and less "porous" discussions.I think Paul is a smart guy. I also think he gets a fair amount of business from his posts, so he won't change his approach unless the Forummeister asks him to change.

As I said before, I think it would better to have the Forum go the other direction and allow people to discuss their own products, as long as it is done in connection with a meaningful discussion.

Ian McColgin
08-08-2003, 02:06 PM
I'm drifting Scott's way on this one. I don't mind an acknowledged pro sharing what he or she thinks. I find Paul getting a tad shameless at times but I think this is a crowd slaps him backin a timely way. Verging. Wish he were as tasteful and non-selfpromoting as Todd is. But no ban, yet.

Wayne Jeffers
08-08-2003, 02:15 PM
Any time one of the professionals on this forum posts, we each have an opportunity to form an opinion of his competence in his field. This will influence our decision to perhaps contact that person off-line to conduct commercial transactions. I don't see this as a problem.

Paul's posts strike me as acceptably objective, even though he includes his own products in some of the tests he's done. Furthermore, his commercial web site includes information arguing that thinned epoxy, his own or someone else's, is equal in performance to CPES. The reader is free to accept or reject his data, but Paul is engaging in something far short of self-promotion, IMO.

I also appreciate the fact that Paul does not post anonymously. Does anyone object to "the chemist" defending CPES? How do we know he doesn't work for Smith and Co.?

In the final analysis, it's up to our hosts to draw the line. I appreciate Paul's input.

Wayne

scepticus
08-08-2003, 03:11 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how I feel.

On the one hand, I've always thought that Paul's posts were pretty borderline as for self promotion. On the other hand, he is very clear that these are his products and therefore I know up front that he MAY have some bias.

Plenty of other products are discussed by name. Some praised, others blasted. I generally have no idea who the person is expressing the opinion.

I don't, but I imagine that if I had a store that sold gronicles, and a discussion came up about which ones were good and where one could get them, I'd probably jump in and say something. If I were the one asking about them, I'd be happy for that.

On the other hand, if I post a brand new unsolicited topic saying that my gronicles are the best and everyone should buy them because they need them even if they don't realize it yet, that's just advertising.

Maybe discussion of particular product labels really ought to go in the product forum, but it's not always practical because discussions just flow.

NormMessinger
08-08-2003, 03:30 PM
Wayne as proven once again that all great minds run along the same track. Which is to say, I agree with his judgement on this situation. Ain't nobody but our host can say if Paul's post is borderline or over the line. And, I don't think any of us has any business making a fuss about it. At least we know what his bias is, if any.

So Paul proved and reported the obvious. Only thing wrong with the experiment I can see is he wasted perfectly good epoxy.

[ 08-08-2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: NormMessinger ]

Ian McColgin
08-08-2003, 03:42 PM
It's especially hard to establish meaningful comparisons between some products because there may be unstated or unrecognised variables.

I first was fascinated by epoxy in the '70's when a couple of my students went on to a career as what amounted to epoxy engineers. They'd look at some very odd problems and formulate something for each individual occasion.

At about the same time, WEST and Gluvit were coming available and into my consciousness. They were certainly an order of magnitude more suitable for wooden boat work than anything in the hardware store.

I think ColdCure and a couple of other of the good propriatories were getting off about then.

Among the reliable products, they are all so good that the major advantage of one or another is the user's competance. For we amatures, that builds with practice. That's why I conservativly stick with what I know about.

Quick aside - my memory of Smith's early lit was that it was a sealer. Others were using it for repair more than he was. But it does well for both uses. Better, in my book, than GitRot but there may be some flaw in how I used the GitRot.

I tried but did not like much Smith's 5 year clear coat, but I remain skeptical of such hard to repair finishes as I tend to beat stuff up.

I find gluing sand completely meaningless and it not only does not usefully compare, to my mind, CPES to ESP, but it makes me further doubt the latter.

It's like how the, I don't remember, maybe the MAS guys at a boat builder's show were trying to convert me from WEST with tales of its dangerous brittleness. True, if you glue cubes. But irrelevant if you have reasonably tight glue lines.

G'luck

Who knows.

htom
08-08-2003, 04:47 PM
Interesting if I wanted to glue up cubes of sand (work in a theatre shop for a while and you get used to very, very strange requests from both the prop shop and the set designers.) I don't see how the results can be extended to wood (rotten or not), which is a very different material than sand.

Nicholas Carey
08-08-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Wayne Jeffers:
Any time one of the professionals on this forum posts, we each have an opportunity to form an opinion of his competence in his field. This will influence our decision to perhaps contact that person off-line to conduct commercial transactions. I don't see this as a problem.
.
.
.
I also appreciate the fact that Paul does not post anonymously. Does anyone object to "the chemist" defending CPES? How do we know he doesn't work for Smith and Co.?The usual netiquette regarding 'self-promotion'/advertising in newsgroups is this:

If one has a commercial interest or affiliation in the topic of discussion, one should disclose that interest or affiliation. Doing so allows readers of posts made by that person to weigh the contents of the post in light of their interest/affiliation.

over in rec.boats, Peggy Hall (Queen of Marine Sanitation Devices) and Kern Hendricks (System III expoxies) do just this.

But...one should avoid, in general, overt advertising. At the same time, though, one shouldn't avoid one's own domain knowledge. If someone asks a question regarding widgets of type X. "Hey...I need a type X widget for my boat! I can't find them anywhere. Anyone know where to get one?"

Answering the question in the obvious way—"Hey, I sell type X widgets! Let's take this offline and see if we can get you set up with what you need."

That's not self-promotion. That's giving someone the information they were looking for.

The reader can judge for themselves, based on what they know about the author of the post, the utility of the proffered information.

Remaining mute would be, to say the least, unhelpful and antithetical to the whole notion of a newsgroup/bulletin board/on-line community.

Answering with a referral to your competition would be, to say the least, not in the best interest of the poster—the equivalent of saying, "I sell the stuff, but I don't believe in what I sell. Try my competition instead."

Similarly, in a qualitative discussion, a poster's response can be weighted in light of his *known* affiliation(s) and interest(s).

but without knowledge of the affiliation/interest, it's much harder to apply that kind of judgement.

Gary E
08-08-2003, 05:26 PM
You who complain about Paul and his little experiment just have no life,
******HE WAS TRYING TO HELP YOU ******

I would bet a dollar to a doughnut hole that Paul has sold so little product as a result of his being here in these forum's as to make it not worth the agravation of listining to your sheeeet, and I would not blame Paul for telling you jerks to experiment with some of your own sand and pound it. Now go figger out ALL your own problems yourself.

G

Russell Sova
08-08-2003, 05:47 PM
I think I'm going to need that queen of sanition devices number soon. What is all the fuss about? Aren't we out building boats? I've read everyones posts here for a long time before chiming in and I don't know how many times I've been inspired to go out and resume building after reading stuff here. This post makes me want to experiment. I've already forgotten his company's name.

thechemist
08-08-2003, 07:21 PM
Just got back and I see there's quite a few viewpoints stirred up. I'll add a few of my own:

I detest bad science. It makes people stupider.

Good science has a certain logic to it. It follows the Scientific Method of
Obervation,
Identification,
Classification,
Hypothesis,
Test, and
Observe.

I was amused to find all the controversy surrounding the CPES product. In all my years in the industry, I don't recall ever having run across so controversial a product, especially one that had been in production for decades. It seems to have both good science and bad science done in its regard.

I detest bad science about anything.

My masters believe that my posts of a noncommercial nature do not violate the Forum rules, and educating people or expressing my political opinions falls within my company's rules of conduct. My masters with to remind you that I am an Artificial Intelligence, a computer program if-you-will, and am programmed to respond in certain areas and not in others.

As for the Forum rules regarding prohibition of self-promotion, I think it is a good idea, for if it were not there you open the door to manufacturers who will claim their product is superior and will trash the competition, and much of a product's technology is what gives it a certain level of performance. Some prodcut claims are based on performance tests, others may not be amenable to detailed testing but are simply statements made by Marketing in support of a product. Such claims may be true or false, but the manufacturer makes them. You see this on every can of varnish, for example. This is where shared epxerience comes in. They may well be true, but indefensible without formulation and in-house test data which virtually everyone considers proprietary. Thus, you won't learn anything new and will have more of the critical blather that gives the Bilge its characteristic odor on occasion. Thus, I seriously doubt that giving manufacturers a soapbox from which to hawk their wares is in the best interests of WBF, or will yield any useful data.

Your own shared exeriences yield useful data of an entirely different character and in many respects greater value than manufacturers' claims.

Any manufacturer has their own web site and their own data which they make publicly available. Forumites at one time or another have posted all manufacturers' contact points, and in any case everyone is only a Google away. Opening the door of WBF to a series of manufacturer's advertising booths, so-to-speak, will in my opinion not add anything new to cyberspace as a whole and will change irreparably the character of this cyberspace.

That's my two-bytes.

tnert
08-08-2003, 07:52 PM
Ease up on Paul everyone. I appreciate that he identifies right up front that he sells epoxy. If you don't catch it in his signature, he often flat out states it in posts "I sell epoxy". Nonetheless, he offers advice that sometimes contradicts his business interest. I doubt anyone is more offended by advertising than me. I cannot listen to commercial radio, and when I watch tv, I mute and ignore commercials. Even the corporate sponsors of NPR raise my dander a bit. I will admit that when I first received a personal reply to one of my posts by Paul, I was a bit put off upon learning his business, but I'm a grown man and can resist anyone's snake oil. Since then I have appreciated his comments and have never once felt he crossed the line to overt commercial self interest. Keep on Paul.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
08-10-2003, 12:26 PM
I think Paul's post is self promotion. My 2 cents, and I don't think it belongs here. Maybe in the bilge..... :confused: tongue.gif

jlapratt
08-10-2003, 01:12 PM
Gentlemen,

There is more here than meets the eye. I once posted some comments on the use of diluted epoxy resin and out of ignorance used the brand name CPES as a generic name for all such concoctions. I also stated that I thought they are all probably of equal effectiveness for the purposes of wooden boat building. I received a scathing e-mail from Mr. Smith himself telling me to cease and desist. I take great offense to manufacturers cruising this forum and chastising those of a different opinion. I will listen to anyone who performs their own experiments on alternative building materials and products, whether CPES or latex house paint. Sure, Paul's motivation may be in part commercial, and I will filter results accordingly, but I appreciate his trying.

As for experimental methods, how many different durability tests have we seen for plywood? Boiling, leaving under a down spout, results of old outdoor projects, longevity of older plywood boats. Everyone has an opinion, some with more sound basis than others, but they all help when I go to make a decision on what to do. In fact, ask a simple question on this forum and many times you will get so many differing answers that one is left more confused.

Let Paul continue. Somehow police manufacturers from cruising the site and bashing us. And most important of all, caveat emptor.

Jeff

Peter Malcolm Jardine
08-10-2003, 09:07 PM
Okay, then the basis for Paul's experiment is so incredibly flawed that the conclusions mean doodly squat. Sand is made up of completely different molecular strata than wood, and the rest of the experiment goes downhill from there. If he is going to be allowed to sell expoxy on the forum, he should come up with smarter testing at the very least.

Joe (SoCal)
08-10-2003, 09:51 PM
Nice to know the bilge is alive and well up here :rolleyes:

LisaS
08-10-2003, 09:56 PM
How about with sawdust instead of sand?

Lisa

Mr. Blimp
08-11-2003, 12:10 AM
At that point why not just pour the two testing products into their own individual plastic containers, allow for evaporation time, allow to cure, and then, smack with the hammer. Wouldn't the test results be just as meaningfull as the test performed that kicked this all off - or would they be just as useless?

Wayne Jeffers
08-11-2003, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
Okay, then the basis for Paul's experiment is so incredibly flawed that the conclusions mean doodly squat. . . .If Paul's experiment is flawed, perhaps it is because the claims made by Smith and Co. for CPES are flawed.

Unlike the manufacturer of CPES, Paul did not claim that soaking deteriorated wood in his product, or his product plus solvent, would restore the wood to a close proximity of its original properties.

The conclusion he stated from his experiment was:
Extra solvent aids penetration but the trade off is 'strength' of the penetrated area which has to do with the amount of epoxy left behind by the solvent.This seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Translation: "Don't soak rotten wood in thinned epoxy and expect it to have mechanical properties equal to new wood." Works for me.

I like Lisa's idea. Paul should have used sawdust. Or better yet, rotten sawdust.

Wayne

Scott Rosen
08-11-2003, 09:01 AM
Sawdust is similarly useless. When using epoxy to repair rot, you must remove all heavily deteriorated wood, and, if possible, all soft wood. If you were working on a piece of rotten wood, and encountered a spot as soft as sawdust, you would remove it and then use the epoxy.

Wayne, you really have a bug up your *** for CPES. It's too bad you've never actually used it to restore rotten wood, because then your criticism would have some credibility. I have used it for such, and it does what Smith says it will do.

Scott Rosen
08-11-2003, 09:08 AM
Added: you should ask for Smith's literature on repairing rot. It's a system that requires more than CPES. Basically, you remove the soft wood, soak the piece in CPES and then restore the shape of the piece by using a combination of unthinned epoxy resins and fillers.

It's not designed to repair a heavily rotten structural member like a frame that's rotted through or a plank hood end that no longer holds fasteners. It's ideal for delaminated and rotten plywood, such as cabin tops, bulkheads, etc., and spots of rot on lumber that are not in high stress areas.

On Vacation
08-11-2003, 09:31 AM
There are things in life, concerning the longivity of wood that exist here. If you are attempting to preserve a piece of wood to exist in basically "dry state" as in when a tree is cut down, then one must do this by recreating sap into the wood pores. This does more to protect it from unatural elements, and allow it to "regenerate itself" so to speak, then just sealing the wood. A boat built out of solid planking, does much better with Linseed oil primer or coating to the bare wood, than any other item in the business. That is what I have found as a tried and true fixall, to real wooden hulls. Then stop attempting to aquire fancy finishes with unnatural products such as poly paints, and stick with the best oil based paint avaliable on the market. Mother nature has more case history to back her up, than any manufacturer in the business.

[ 08-11-2003, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Oyster ]

Wayne Jeffers
08-11-2003, 10:07 AM
Scott,

I've read the information at http://www.woodrestoration.com/ and I am unconvinced.

They treated undamaged cedar samples in CPES and detected a measurable increase in strength in destructive testing compared to untreated samples. I wonder how the samples treated with CPES would have compared to control samples treated with another compound that would have penetrated and filled the pores of the wood, such as linseed oil or thinned paint, or even with another epoxy compound.

Their experiment on new sound wood tells me nothing about the ability of the product to restore strength to wood that has deteriorated, i.e., wood in which the fibers which give the wood its strength are compromised, though not necessarily to the point of crumbling. This is the claim made for CPES that I find objectionable.

When you used CPES to "restore" deteriorated wood, did you test the result to the point of breaking to verify that the strength of the treated wood to resist breakage from torsional loads had indeed been restored, or at least increased measurably from its untreated strength? Or are you judging from the observation that it arrested further deterioration and perhaps hardened the surface of the wood?

It sounds to me like you have used the product as part of a repair for non-structural wood where the strength was of little concern. This is not the primary claim Smith makes for CPES. Do you have any evidence that another epoxy product, perhaps thinned with solvent, would not have performed equally well at far lower cost? That is the principal message I get from Paul's posts, and I find his posts convincing as to this limited claim.

Wayne

George Roberts
08-11-2003, 04:50 PM
I thank Paul for his comments.

Those who think his science is wrong should do their own experiments and let the rest of us say their science is flawed.

Criticism needs to precede an experiment to be valid.

On Vacation
08-11-2003, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by George Roberts:
I thank Paul for his comments.

Those who think his science is wrong should do their own experiments and let the rest of us say their science is flawed.

Criticism needs to precede an experiment to be valid.Last time I checked in on coating wood, I cleaned off the sand before coating it. Experiments are fine. But it is just like many engineering numbers, many times in the real world, it is 180 to real life circumstances. It should surely be done as close to the real life situations as possible. The sand will never be anywhere close to a piece of wood, and will never give you an accurate result to say one product is better than the other.

JimD
08-11-2003, 10:35 PM
Paul, what you need to end this controversy is a login alias. I hear no one is using 'Dutch Rub' anymore :D

Scott Rosen
08-12-2003, 06:40 AM
I wonder how the samples treated with CPES would have compared to control samples treated with another compound that would have penetrated and filled the pores of the wood, such as linseed oil or thinned paint, or even with another epoxy compound.
I don't think anyone claims that paint or linseed oil will add any strength. I don't know how other epoxy compounds would work. I assume that if some other epoxy manufacturer thought their product would work just as well or better, they would already have published the results of their experiments.


Their experiment on new sound wood tells me nothing about the ability of the product to restore strength to wood that has deteriorated, i.e., wood in which the fibers which give the wood its strength are compromised, though not necessarily to the point of crumbling. This is the claim made for CPES that I find objectionable.
I don't agree. The basic structure of sound wood is pretty close to the structure of rotten wood. Closer than sand or sponges, in any event. It's almost impossible to do a comparison test on rotten wood because it's impossible to determine the full extent of the rot in any given piece of wood.

When you used CPES to "restore" deteriorated wood, did you test the result to the point of breaking to verify that the strength of the treated wood to resist breakage from torsional loads had indeed been restored, or at least increased measurably from its untreated strength? Or are you judging from the observation that it arrested further deterioration and perhaps hardened the surface of the wood?
I have not done any tests, per se. I have observed that areas in which the CPES penetrated hardened, and not just the surface. I have also observed that there is no further rot and that coatings will stick and stay for longer than they would on a rotten piece. I have observed that CPES does a better job at it than plain unthinned epoxy, as I tried that a few years ago and the repairs didn't last.

It sounds to me like you have used the product as part of a repair for non-structural wood where the strength was of little concern. This is not the primary claim Smith makes for CPES. Do you have any evidence that another epoxy product, perhaps thinned with solvent, would not have performed equally well at far lower cost? That is the principal message I get from Paul's posts, and I find his posts convincing as to this limited claim.
I have used CPES to repair plywood cabin tops and bulkheads. I have used it to repair small patches of rot in my mast and small patches under an improperly bedded fitting on my topside planking. If I had a large area of rot that I thought would threaten the structural integrity of the boat, I would fix it right by replacing the offending wood with new wood and then trying to eliminate the condition that caused the rot in the first place. I have no evidence that another product or home-made thinned epoxy resin would work as well. I also have no interest in performing the test. If someone else shows me convincing test results that the same thing can be achieved for less money, I'll use the method that requires less money. Paul's tests don't even come close to convincing me. Why doesn't he simply duplicate Smith's tests? They are easy, quick and cheap. That would put an end to this interminable debate.

Wayne Jeffers
08-12-2003, 10:00 AM
Good morning, Scott!


I don't think anyone claims that paint or linseed oil will add any strength. I don't know how other epoxy compounds would work.In reading the results of Smith's tests with the cedar shakes, I asked myself how CPES produced the results stated. How did it interface with the wood fiber to enhance the tensile and/or compression loading properties of the wood so as to improve the wood's resistance to breakage from bending? The most obvious hypothesis to answer this question is that it filled the pores of the wood so as to improve resistance to compression. How to know for sure? Perform tests with other compounds that would fill the pores and compare the results. Thinned paint and linseed oil were the first things of this sort that came to mind. Maybe anything that would stuff up the pores in the wood would give similar results. The point is: we don't know.


The basic structure of sound wood is pretty close to the structure of rotten wood. Closer than sand or sponges, in any event. It's almost impossible to do a comparison test on rotten wood because it's impossible to determine the full extent of the rot in any given piece of wood.I believe the structure of sound wood is radically different from the structure of rotten wood. As wood deteriorates, the long fibers which give wood its strength are broken down. Testing deteriorated wood should not pose a special challenge. Simply determine a valid way of weathering wood to an appropriate state of deterioration and test enough samples so that a few samples that are not representative are not statistically significant in the overall results. Testing the mechanical properties of wood is an established science. http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/FPLGTR/fplgtr113/Ch04.pdf Testing wood weathered or deteriorated to various stages and subsequently treated with products intended to "restore" its original properties is only a small step beyond current practice.

You seem to have an inordinate fixation on Paul's use of cellulose sponges and sand in testing certain qualities of epoxy in various stages of dilution to discount all his test results. It was not the intent that sponges or sand emulate wood in any way. The very limited point of those experiments was to compare the penetration and the mechanical properties of various epoxies diluted with various amounts of solvent. The results of both those experiments were precisely what I would expect: 1) Epoxy diluted with solvents penetrates more deeply than undiluted epoxy, and 2) Epoxy progressively loses strength/hardness with progressive solvent dilution. That does not discount the other extensive tests that Paul has done and has published on his web site.


I have observed that areas in which the CPES penetrated hardened, and not just the surface. I have also observed that there is no further rot and that coatings will stick and stay for longer than they would on a rotten piece. I have observed that CPES does a better job at it than plain unthinned epoxy, as I tried that a few years ago and the repairs didn't last.I do not question that. That is the result I would expect from CPES or any other low viscosity or thinned epoxy used in repairing deteriorated wood; it penetrates and makes the softened wood harder and it inhibits further rot.


If I had a large area of rot that I thought would threaten the structural integrity of the boat, I would fix it right by replacing the offending wood with new wood and then trying to eliminate the condition that caused the rot in the first place.I would do the same. And if you carefully read the fine print on Smith's web site, he advises the same. But his web site is grossly deceptive, IMO, as he screams in the bold print that CPES will result in "RESTORATION" the wood. From the dictionary definition of "restoration," the claim is that CPES will return the wood to its former condition or properties. Much of the text of Smith's web site encourages this deception.


I have no evidence that another product or home-made thinned epoxy resin would work as well. I also have no interest in performing the test. If someone else shows me convincing test results that the same thing can be achieved for less money, I'll use the method that requires less money.I have no evidence that CPES is superior to other thinned epoxy resin, off-the-shelf or home-made. The only thing Smith points to as distinguishing his resin from the competition is its origins from wood rather than petro-chemicals. And because it comes from wood, the cured resin is more wood-like. I believe Dave Carnell when he says this is "hokum" and that the resulting epoxy molecules are indistinguishable either way.


Paul's tests don't even come close to convincing me. Why doesn't he simply duplicate Smith's tests? They are easy, quick and cheap. That would put an end to this interminable debate. Paul's tests are far more extensive than Smith's tests. I find Paul's tests far more persuasive. They tell me that other low-viscosity epoxy or epoxy thinned 10% with xylene will work as well as CPES at a far lower cost.

I question the relevance of Smith's test of treated cedar bending to the point of breaking. Neither you nor I will, for example, treat a deteriorated spar with CPES and expect it to be as strong or stronger than new. Or a rotted frame. Smith's test as it was conducted would be most nearly relevant to those conditions, not to repairing softened non-structural wood.

If Paul duplicated Smith's tests, I doubt that it would put an end to this debate. ;)

To review: I feel CPES is a good product for repairing (not restoring) non-structural wood that is not too far gone. I believe CPES works well as a primer/sealer (though Smith does not market "CPES" for this purpose.) I suspect that other penetrating epoxies or thinned epoxies would work equally well or better at lower cost. And I am offended by the Smith web site regarding wood "restoration," which I feel is deceptive.

Wayne

Scott Rosen
08-12-2003, 10:46 AM
Hi Wayne,

Life must be really good if you and I have the time to spend arguing over nothing! ;) At least it keeps us out of trouble.

You're bugged by Smith's website. I'm not. I'm bugged by Paul's constant self-promotion. You're not. I would like to get to the bottom of the "wood-derived" resin controversy.

CPES is, as you say, a good product. Since I don't know exactly what's in it, I don't know if thinned MAS would do the same job. I just don't know. Someone with the resources could do a chemical analysis. Until then, I'll stick with what has worked for me. The worst thing that will happen is that I'll spend a little more money than I needed to. I can live with that.

Ex-Oceangoddess
08-12-2003, 10:56 AM
For my money, the best penetrating epoxy I've used is made by Industrial Formulators in Burnaby, BC. Used gallons of the stuff over the years and it does exactly what they say it does. They do not, incidentally, say that it will resurrect rotten wood - just stabilize it.

Being Canadian I'll bet its less expensive to buy here than CPES.

Ian McColgin
08-12-2003, 11:06 AM
Jeff,

It's not odd that Mr. Smith would privately, if vigorously, contact you to defend the honor of his brand name. You actd in innosence but it is a bit like saying that Coke is no good because I don't like the taste of Pepsi. We who know our colas know the difference.

Wayne,

I disagree with you about the value of Mr. Smith's tests vs. the value of Paul's tests. Look to part 5.2 of Smith's remarks, for example.

I find that in my own use - and as I've posted above I find familarity with a product often outweighs any small superiority one from another - but I do have side by side experience with GitRot, thinned WEST and CPES. CPES has worked far better for me as a sealer and in the limits of rot 'repair' than the other two.

CPES also scares the daylights out of toredos!

Seriously, my pal with the epoxy rebuilt Wianno (dryed out, cedar sheathed etc) had occasion to bore some new keel bolt holes through keel timbers that had been coated with CPES maybe 6 years before. Right down the middle, 4" from each side, you could still smell the toxic stuff in the drill shavings. The CPES itself seems to penetrate less than 1/16" in side grain (as Mr. Smith notes) but the solvents appear to get everywhere inside. My money is on them keeping down any thought of rot.

I really doubt the need for further rotacides in new construction if CPES is used as a sealer.

One note of caution. Some products, like the old time Cuprinol, turned out to be a bit unsafe inside a boat as it's a closed environment and you don't want to be poisoning yourself. This has been a worry I've had about CPES, but appears unfounded both regarding the Wianno and Granuaile.

I'm just guessing but it seems as if once the epoxy barrior coat is cured, the solvents somehow stop outgassing, even though water vapor appears to move a bit. Not science here but I can't smell it and despite having over the years developed a mild sensitivity to epoxys I notice no ill effects.

But maybe I'm wrong.

G'luck

Wayne Jeffers
08-12-2003, 12:52 PM
Hi Scott,

Yes, life is good. smile.gif The way I see it, these little exchanges give me a pleasant diversion from the monotony of being underworked at the moment.

The principal way in which life could be better is if I were to retire and have unlimited time for boatbuilding, sailing, fishing, and travel. Soon, perhaps. ;)

Ian,


I disagree with you about the value of Mr. Smith's tests vs. the value of Paul's tests. Look to part 5.2 of Smith's remarks, for example.I would draw a distinction between Smith's tests and his remarks in 5.2 of the paper at www.woodrestoration.com. (http://www.woodrestoration.com.) The remarks at 5.2 are sensible enough and probably describe reasonable limits as to what one can expect from CPES. Smiths first tests show that CPES is absorbed into the end grain of one-inch long pieces of wood. This is no surprise. The second set of tests shows that cedar shakes treated with CPES are stronger than untreated cedar shakes in terms of resisting breaking from bending.

This second set of tests is predicated upon the assertion, found in the last paragraph at 3.0, that because cedar shakes take up the same amount of water as a piece of old Douglas fir, the testing of "a natural cedar shingle is an acceptable surrogate standard for deteriorated wood." The fact that sound cedar was strengthened by CPES is supposed to prove that deteriorated wood would be similarly strengthened.

By the water-absorption standard, I suggest that red oak would make an even better surrogate as it is extremely porous and would probably soak up even more water. Does anyone believe that new red oak has strength properties equal to or less than deteriorated Doug fir?

I suggest that the results of the second test are invalid, as the relevant characteristic of deteriorated wood is not the rate of absorption of water (or CPES.) The relevant characteristic of deteriorated wood is that the long fibers that give wood its strength are deteriorated. I believe this deterioration of fiber is irreversible. I suggest that healthy wood, of whatever species, can never be a valid surrogate for deteriorated wood, as the chemical properties of the latter have been altered in a way not found in any new wood.

Now, because CPES does not IMO meet its advertised claims of being a fountain of youth for old rotted wood does not mean that it is not useful for other purposes, as you suggest. I have conceded this already. My objection is that the advertising claims are misleading and the product appears overpriced. But I see you have not used CPES to "restore" deteriorated timbers in lieu of proper replacement, as might be suggested by a less than careful reading of the Smith web site. ;)

Your report of its effect on worms is interesting. I would hypothesize that the solvents penetrated the wood (as you suggested) and that the CPES on the outside acted as a barrier to retard (but not stop) further outgassing. It's hard to say how long the solvents would remain at a level toxic to the worms, as CPES still has some porosity, but six years is a pretty impressive record. As a side note, I suggest that if you are sensitive to epoxy, you are not necessarily sensitive to the solvents added to the epoxy component of CPES.

I'd like to see independent tests of CPES compared to other commercially available penetrating epoxies (Paul's product, plus FGCI's penetrating epoxy, plus any others on the market), as well as MAS with the slow hardener thinned with 10% xylene, etc.

Maybe if someone would do this test and properly document the results, etc., our hosts would see fit to publish the results. Or maybe not. ;) :D

Wayne

George Roberts
08-12-2003, 01:46 PM
Wayne Jeffers ---

you wrote:

"Maybe if someone would do this test and properly document the results, etc., our hosts would see fit to publish the results. Or maybe not."

What will you pay to have the tests done?

My tests on glass/epoxy/cedar and glass/epoxy/redwood wood strip boats cost $400 for materials. Results are for sale.

My tests on abrasion resistant fabrics cost $75 for materials. Results are for sale.

I expect the tests you want will cost $100 for materials and $400 for my time.

Put up some money or accept what is offered for free.

Tar Devil
08-12-2003, 02:11 PM
Bingo, Donn. That certainly was a more overt self-promotion than Paul's (and a lot less informative).

Later,

Phil

Wayne Jeffers
08-12-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by George Roberts:
Wayne Jeffers ---

you wrote:

"Maybe if someone would do this test and properly document the results, etc., our hosts would see fit to publish the results. Or maybe not."

What will you pay to have the tests done?

My tests on glass/epoxy/cedar and glass/epoxy/redwood wood strip boats cost $400 for materials. Results are for sale.

My tests on abrasion resistant fabrics cost $75 for materials. Results are for sale.

I expect the tests you want will cost $100 for materials and $400 for my time.

Put up some money or accept what is offered for free.Hi George,

I'm not sure how you can know what tests I want done, because I can't rightly say that I've thought out all the details of a valid test for penetrating epoxies. LOL

Smith's first test of penetration in wood is a fair test of . . . penetration in wood. It would be interesting to see how CPES compared to other products in this respect. But Smith concedes that, except in end-grain, penetration is no more than 1/16-inch. This penetration leaves me substantially unimpressed. It seems to me that this amounts to little more than a primer/sealer. Perhaps it stabilizes a deteriorating surface, which is a reasonable objective. At any rate, controlled tests of the efficacy of various brands of penetrating epoxies in stabilizing wood over an extended period of time seems to me far beyond what I am willing to personally bankroll.

As stated earlier, I do not accept the validity of Smith's second set of tests using new cedar as a surrogate for deteriorated Douglas fir in tests of bending to the point of breaking. Cedar shingles are cheap and easily available. Perhaps I should get some and replicate Smith's tests using various other compounds I have available. I have paint, linseed oil, several brands of epoxy, and (I think) some Xylene solvent on hand. I think it would be interesting (though irrelevant) if other compounds equaled or exceeded CPES in terms of strengthening cedar shingles. It seems to me that the burden is on Smith to persuade me that CPES will restore deteriorated wood to youthful vigor, as he suggests. In this he has failed because I think his testing methods are flawed and I believe the objective to be unattainable.

So far as accepting what is offered for free, I've already accepted Paul Oman's free advice on penetrating epoxies and epoxies as primer/sealers:

To create what I believe would be the best available penetrating epoxy, I would thin a good quality, low viscosity epoxy 10% with xylene. This would improve penetration of the epoxy upon porous surfaces. I might thin this epoxy as much as 25-33% if I was not overly concerned about the rubbery mass that would form, or if using it as a surface sealer (where much of the solvent will evaporate out of the mixture before the epoxy begins to gel). Warming the epoxy will decrease its viscosity and improve penetration. So too will warming the surface it is being applied to. As the object cools, the air in it will contract, helping to draw the epoxy into the object.
As a 'sealer',' 'primer', or 'undercoat' for paints or varnishes, epoxies have proven their worth. No special product is needed here. In my opinion, just about any epoxy, thinned or unthin, will perform this task in a satisfactory manner.and

CONCLUSIONS: more solvent equals more penetration, but less strength.Quoted from: http://www.epoxyproducts.com/penetrating4u.html

Wayne

Jim H
08-12-2003, 06:05 PM
CPES I bought it, I used it, it does what Mr. Smith claims it does. No more no less. Dave Carnel's advice on stopping rot works, I treated some rotten beams down at the bay house and the rot stopped. I just wish some of the drama would stop. If Paul had ommited the common acronym "CPES"and used "product A" it would have been more acceptable but in the overall picture it is self-promotion, especially with the link to his website.

NormMessinger
08-12-2003, 08:17 PM
"If Paul had ommited the common acronym "CPES"and used "product A" it would have been more acceptable,...."

And less informative.

Hey, I have and idea for a song: "Mister sand man bring me a boat...."

Jim H
08-13-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by NormMessinger:
"If Paul had ommited the common acronym "CPES"and used "product A" it would have been more acceptable,...."

And less informative.

Hey, I have and idea for a song: "Mister sand man bring me a boat...."I would agree if he wasn't suppling the competitive product.

Art Read
08-13-2003, 01:05 PM
Mr. Roberts comments on his "propietary" test results shed a little light on his previously stated disinclination to ever offer assistance to anybody in trouble on the water aboard a "home built" boat... Perhaps he's afraid they can't afford to pay him for his trouble? Why exactly ARE you here, George? :confused:

Nothing to do with the quality or "value" of the products themselves, (which I happen to believe are top notch...) but companies like "Smiths" and Kirby's, to name two, impress the hell out of me with their obvious interest in, and appreciation for, their customers. It's also obvious that they truely enjoy what they do and genuinely want people to share the enthusiam. Having called out of the blue and spoken on the phone with both Mr. Kirby and Mr. Smith, I was very impressed and flattered that not only did they answer their own phones, they took the time to discuss my project and it's needs with me at great length. Hell, I "thought" I had a quick question... I got an education instead! Though I have yet to do business with him, I suspect Paul is the same way.

I suppose that if I made my living making, say, high quality varnish brushes, I'd have a very hard time remaining completely unbiased on the perennial "Varnising" threads around here. Not if I was good at what I did and proud of my product, anyway. Enthusiasm for one's work and "self-promotion" often appear to be the same thing, but they aren't always.

I, for one, appreciate those of you "in the business" that take the time to participate here and FREELY pass on your hard-earned experience to us "babes in the woods"...

Ed Harrow
08-16-2003, 10:37 PM
Here's another test:

http://www.rotdoctor.com/test/test2.html

Your results may vary. :D ;)

George Roberts
08-17-2003, 10:30 AM
Art Read wrote:

"Why exactly ARE you here, George?"

If you look in this thread, I commented favorably on Paul's test. That means I feel the test was more relevant than those who objected to the test.

Wayne Jeffers wanted different unspecified tests. I pointed out the material costs (forget the labor cost) of doing those tests to show that to demand "FREE" test results from others is simply unreasonable.

I have provided my conclusions of those tests for FREE when the subject arose.