| Pages:
1
2
3 |
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2939
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
You're mistaken if I believe that things are black-and-white. Of course the EPA is not 100%, and often caves to industry pressure in certain areas,
but read their assessment of BPA:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/bpa.html
It clearly accepts that there are problems and risks with BPA, the question is whether they consider the risks great enough to ban the substance. I
agree with you that it should be banned and that the EPA is moving too slowly (as it often does).
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
But we were talking about superglue. There is no "cyanide" in cyanoacrylate, and besides, the toxic action of free cyanide, if there were any, is due
to its instant reactivity, it could not have any cumulative effects. Brian is 100% correct. It cannot linger precisely because it reacts and thus
ceases to be cyanide.
The concept of "chemicals" being a threat to "natural" organisms is part of a popular romantic conspiracy theory. It ignores the most fundamental
fact, that there is nothing more or less "natural" in nature; it's all one big chemical stew, including our bodies. Plant matter can be just as deadly
as man-made compounds, witness Socrates drinking 100% natural organic hemlock.
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2939
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
Check out the molecular structure of cyanoacrylate. It absolutely does contain cyanide.
But as noted, it is not free, and is inaccessible.
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
In that paper, acrylates are very deeply absorbed into wood prepared in a vacuum. Having used surface coatings of polymerizing oils, I'm thinking of
doing the next fingerboard by cyanoacrylate impregnation, instead of struggling with a coating. It doesn't even have to penetrate very deeply. I
recently noticed how amazingly well the thin superglue wicks into hardwood. It takes a light sanding to remove surface oil barriers and present a more
porous surface. Then probably just wet the fingerboard straight from the applicator tip. Any dribbles over the edge could be cleaned up with acetone,
so taping the sides would probably be counterproductive, as it would create a wicking channel. Finally sand with fine sandpaper and polish to the
desired gloss. I don't have a piece to try it on, maybe someone does?
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
Brian, you and I both know it doesn't "contain" cyanide, it has cyano groupings in the molecular structure. Countless compounds, including vitamin B12
supplements, have such structures. We could even say that such vitamin b12 IS a cyanide, but not that "it contains" cyanide. The distinction is
important, because it's the free reactive CN that's toxic, and it's what people think of, as in potassium cyanide or hydrogen cyanide gas. The
question was whether handling wood impregnated with cyanoacrylate presents any risk of absorbing free cyanide, and it seems impossible. If nothing
else it is widely used in dentistry and surgery.
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2939
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
Vitamin B12 has no "cyano groupings" in its naturally occurring forms, nor in the form it is used by the body. The cyanide is introduced when it is
synthetically manufactured, and in this case it actually does convert to free cyanide in the body (because the usable B12 has no cyanide, the body
takes the B12 and leaves the cyanide free).
It would seem in principle that cyanide poisoning via B12 supplements would be possible, but it doesn't happen even with absurd doses (with the
exception of people who already have elevated levels of cyanide, like smokers). This is because the body will ignore excess B12 and pass it through,
so the cyanide is never freed from the excess doses.
For the same reason, (natural, cyano-free) B12 is actually used to treat cyanide poisoning, because when the body cannot process any more B12, it
passes through harmlessly (doesn't build up in the body). Since it can bond with cyanide, the excess B12 traps the cyanide and it is then safely
excreted from the body.
It is more misleading to say that CA has "no cyanide" and "has nothing to do with cyanide". It's more meaningful to acknowledge that chemically it
contains the same molecular structure found in "cyanide", but that structure can be dangerous or harmless depending on the rest of the structure of
the compound because it is primarily hydrogen cyanide that is very dangerous to humans.
In the case of CA, it is clear that the cyanide has nothing to do with hydrogen cyanide nor any variant dangerous to humans.
We're on the same side here, Fernand, just a disagreement on terminology. In the face of the cyano-paranoid, I don't think just repeatedly asserting
"it has nothing to do with cyanide" will open any eyes.
This has been one of the more interesting OT digressions in a while (good think it's not jdowning's thread)! 
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Brian Prunka - "(good think it's not jdowning's thread)!"
Fame at last!!
fernandraynaud - "I don't have a piece to try it on, maybe someone does?"
I am not a superglue user but did suggest at the start of this thread last year that the stuff might be used as a surface hardener for maple as well
as proposing to test wood hardeners for their effectiveness (or otherwise) in hardening maple. However, as wood hardness is measured quantitatively by
an indentation test, I doubt that a thin surface coating of either chemical would have any significant impact on measured hardness. Maple is difficult
to penetrate to any depth - even with low viscocity fluids - outside of a pressure chamber. I also doubt that thin (and fast setting) superglue will
have any supernatural penetrating power when it comes to soaking into hard maple.
However - as I do have plenty of highly figured soft and hard maple - rather than theorise about what may or may not happen I shall run some
comparative hardness tests on maple treated with superglue. I have other more pressing priorities at present but will present my test results some
time later as a separate topic on this forum.
As superglue can cause serious skin allergies on contact and the fumes respiratory problems, some care will be necessary in conducting the trials
(i.e. use of a fume extraction hood and nitrile gloves). Whether or not skin dermatitis can occur when handling the cured chemical over time (e.g. on
a treated fingerboard) - I will gladly leave to others to find out!
|
|
|
reminore
Oud Junkie
Posts: 108
Registered: 10-30-2010
Location: Binghamton, NY
Member Is Offline
|
|
as the voice of the 'cyano paranoid' - i can only say, 'watch the sarcasm fernand', you remember how the turunz affair spiraled out of control...
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
I sure wasn't contributing to that one spiraling. And where do you read sarcasm in what I said here? You mean by saying organic plant matter can be
toxic?
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
Thanks, John, that's great.
I don't know much about wood mechanics, but I wonder if hardness, as measured by the ball test, would detect increased resistance to string damage,
which seems to involve some sort of abrasion.
The polymerizing oils for instance protect the fingerboard by providing a sacrificial layer that wears and needs to be periodically refreshed. With
thick epoxy and superglue coatings, I'm not sure. People have said they wear very slowly. The way I imagine superglue impregnation (perhaps) working
is by penetrating the top layer of wood and creating a tougher, more abrasion-resistant "petrified wood" or "plastic wood" layer. But I don't know if
it would necessarily be more resistant to indentation by the ball drop method. Is resistance to abrasion the same thing as the "hardness" of a wood
type?
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hardness of a wood (or metal) is a measure of the resistance of the material to permanent (plastic) deformation due to localised pressure. It can also
refer to the resistance a material has to wear by abrasion.
Manufacturers of wooden flooring use the hardess test as a guide to the durabilty of a wood species from both indentation and abrasion wear.
Hardness is not a fundamental property of a material but depends upon its elasticity (ability to fully recover from a pressure loading - represented
by Young's Modulus), its yield strength (the point at which it begins to deform plastically) and its ultimate tensile strength (the point at which it
will break under tensile loading).
Both metal and wood hardness testing and measurement involve forcing a hard metal ball or diamond point into the material at a known load and
measuring the diameter or depth of the resulting indentation. One exception is the Shore Scleroscope test that depends upon the material elasticity -
a weight being dropped onto the material and the height of rebound measured. As far as I know this latter test only has an application for metals.
Unlike the other hardness tests it leaves no mark on the surface of the material.
For macro indentation tests the material under test must be between seven to fifteen times thicker than the depth of indentation - so that there is no
influence of the supporting base on the results.
Any surface damage to a fingerboard (underneath the string positions) will be indentation of the wood caused by pressure by the fingers on the string
- not abrasion (as there is no relative movement between a string and surface of a fingerboard). The higher the string tension the greater the
pressure?
Out of curiousity, I examined all of my instrument fingerboards (guitars, lutes and vihuelas) for indentation damage underneath the strings - all to
no avail. All that I could find was discolouration on the fingerboards between the string courses.
The only scarring found was on an old classical guitar purchased at a yard sale some years ago. Built in the 1960's it showed signs of having been
well used including longitudinal grooves and scarring of the fingerboard. However there were no grooves in evidence directly underneath the strings
(although there were slight grooves in the metal frets) - only between the strings. I have to conclude that the scarring was due to the former player
having long nails on the left hand that had caused the scarring or scratching (i.e. actual abrasive wear resulting in loss of material).
So the question is - does the pressure on strings being pressed onto a fingerboard by the fingers really create physical grooves in the wood over
time?
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
You're quite right to go back to square one. On a fretted instrument it's not the same, the frets take most of the beating.
Looking first at my 1963 Martin D-18, what I see is indentation from fingernails, most pronounced in the rosewood before the 1st fret. The hand is
most angled there and the index finger's nail gouges the fretboard as pressure is applied, especially with vibrato. Second image, on my Gibson 1965
ES335 the frets are lower, wider and softer. But again, the rosewood fingerboard right under the string is the least worn.
On a fretless fingerboard one doesn't rock the string side to side for vibrato, but there has to be some side to side settling as well as motion fore
and aft, as the finger pushes the wound strings down.
Third image, we have a Sukar plain walnut fingerboard with some initial visible wear. Fourth a short scale fretless bass, rosewood coated with
polymerizing oil. The coating appears to be weathering the wear, but time for a refresh. Fifth, a rosewood 6 string fretless, that has had little play
since the fingerboard was sanded, but we can see some initial wear. This in spite of using flatwound strings. With roundwounds, the wear gets quite
dramatic, whence the idea of coating with epoxy.
[file]25310[/file] [file]25312[/file] [file]25314[/file] [file]25316[/file] [file]25318[/file]
I'm not sure what the mechanism of wear is, whether strictly indentation or some combination of factors, but the result is a "grooving" that gets in
the way of playing as the strings seat in the grooves and then start to buzz.
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
I had an oud from Khalid in Morocco with a beech FB and shellac... nice oud but bad FB. The shellac is a disaster for FB... just wares off in a
flash... and beech is too soft (beech has same hardness as maple I'd say)... also this oud had beech pegs which kept breaking.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The first image posted by fernandraynaud is similar to that observed on my old beaten up classical guitar - and confirms that it is fingernails that
are the problem not the strings that are causing fingerboard damage!
Simple, obvious solution folks - save yourself some future cost in fingerboard repair by keeping your fingernails cut short so that they do not
scratch and gouge material from the fingerboard!
Not sure what relevance string damage on a fretless guitar fingerboard has to do with that of an oud but it looks from the images to be minor compared
to the fingernail gouging problem. Note also the open longitudinal grain of the fingerboard material that will no doubt add to the problem if a string
happens to settle into an open grain where the wood is softer. The materials used for the fingerboards on those instruments would seem to be
particularly poor in this respect.
Perhaps string wear damage on an oud fingerboard is of little or no significance even in the long term - especially if a hard close grained hardwood
is used?
Beech is quite a soft hardwood but no point in guessing. For hard maple the Janka hardness number is 1450 lbs- force and for American and European
Beech 1300 lbs-force - so Beech is softer. These numbers are average published values so can vary somewhat either way dependant upon the variety of
the species.
Too soft for pegs also in my experience.
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
John, I don't understand what you're talking about.
The problem with (fretted) guitars is FRET wear.
As the frets wear, strings start to buzz. The fingerboard
marks are indeed from nails, and immaterial as they affect
nothing. Strictly cosmetic.
You're not sure what relevance a "fretless guitar" has?
John, there IS a photo of an oud there. And I'm sorry I
can't show you a more deeply worn fingerboard, I try to
prevent it.
The (very real) problem with strings wearing down finger-
boards on fretless bass, oud and other unfretted instruments
is the same, and hardly "of little to no significance". If it was,
why on earth would people go to the trouble of re-leveling
their fingerboards? Repeatedly? I think it was David B. whose
Sukar Model 1 ran out of planable fingerboard after the third
leveling.
I was showing you the TYPE of wear, at an early stage. It's
under the strings, and not due to fingernails.
The rosewood surfaces at that magnification are pretty typical,
the little channels are in the nature of the wood unless it's filled.
You can see those and some misc scratches that have no impact.
But you can also see the marks caused by the strings, that later
develop into deeper grooves, causing buzzing.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Sorry that you do not understand fernandraynaud.
I do not see why there would be more stopped string pressure on the strings of a fretless instrument than one that is fretted - string tensions being
the same, higher string tension equating to higher downward pressure on a string in order to maintain firm contact with the fingerboard surface.
The fretless guitar images sure don't look like a typical oud set up to me. What are the string tensions on those heavy gauge, all metal strings?
If Sukar oud fingerboards are experiencing significant (and rapid) grooving due to string pressure (as recorded in your case - and that of David B
apparently) then the problem likely is with the materials used by Sukar for fingerboards. You say that the grooved fingerboard on your oud is made
from walnut. Dependant upon the variety of true walnut, Janka hardness could be in the range of 900 to 1200 lbf compared to about 1450 for hard
maple, and 3000+ for East India Rosewood - so it is perhaps not surprising that you are experiencing these problems. Solution - replace the
fingerboard with a harder wood such as East Indian Rosewood or better still one of the true Ebonies (genus Diospyros)
True rosewoods (genus Dalbergia) can range in Janka hardness from around 1500lbf (Sissoo rosewood - used a lot for oud construction it would seem) to
about 4,700 lbf for African Blackwood. You might have some difficulty wearing grooves due to string pressure on an oud fingerboard made from the
latter material but less so perhaps with one made from Sissoo which is about the same hardness as hard maple.
Applying thin surface coatings of whatever substance to a fingerboard made of a relatively soft material would seem to be a temporary expedient at
best. The thin coating - unable to provide any significant structural support to the fingerboard surface under pressure loading - will just give way
as the softer underlying wood of the fingerboard itself yields to the pressure.
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
You're not easy to please, John. You seem to naysay a lot these days. I was trying to be helpful by showing you examples.
There is (in practice) no string wear on the fingerboard of a fretted guitar. Frets get worn.
Fretless bass strings, typically 0.030" to 0.130", tension 13 to 23 Kg. Roundwounds gouge the fingerboard much faster. Flatwounds are kinder, but
still ... this fingerboard is probably buzzing. On oud the grooving looks different. I'm sorry I just don't have a photo.
[file]25330[/file]
I don't know really what the Sukar 212 fingerboard is made of. I thought ebony, but allegedly he doesn't use it. It's been called "walnut of lions" or
"oily walnut". There are varieties of walnut harder than typical ebony, say 3600 Janka. The idea of replacing it makes no sense, it's perfectly
serviceable and will last years. If treated it will hopefully weather it better. Ovation uses vacuum-treated walnut.
Do you see the 4 string bass example? The coating seems to cushion the wear, and it gets refreshed say once a year. The underlying rosewood isn't
soft, it's not like a marshmallow under a candy layer. More like the other way around. The coating worked well over 3 years on a heavily played Model
1 which I no longer have. The fingerboard showed almost no wear.
The question was whether light sanding then impregnating with "water-thin" superglue might be an alternative, and you offered to try it.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If you mean by 'naysaying' that I displease you by presenting an alternative perspective on a particular topic other than your own view fernandraynaud
then I suppose you may be correct - but no need to take this personally - I am just interested in trying to get at the 'truth' (not you) by an open
exchange of ideas and discussion and, at the same time, hopefully avoiding the perpetuation mis-information and luthier mythology - deliberate or
otherwise.
You state categorically that "there is no string wear (in practice) on a fingerboard of a fretted guitar" but your experience in the matter must be so
limited to surely invalidate such a statement (you can only possibly have first hand knowledge of an extremely small percentage of the total number of
fretted guitars in the world).
Your statement caused me to look again in much closer detail at the fingerboards of the three fretted, nylon strung classical guitars that I own (but
never use these days). The first guitar that I owned - purchased in 1961 by a self taught beginner without any idea of what to look for - was a low
end student guitar made by the Tatay sons factory in Spain. This guitar - although made from 'solid' wood was unsatisfactory in many ways both from
material quality and construction. Nevertheless it served for three years and beyond until I figured I could make a better guitar and did so. At the
same time I became interested in the lute and so - at a time of transition until I could get around to building my own lute - the guitar was converted
to a six double course instrument before being abandonned.
Examining the fingerboard of this guitar now under magnification I find string scarring on the fingerboard at the second to sixth fret for the sixth
course, copper wound, at the third fret for the third course copper wound and even at the third fret for the first course smooth plain nylon.
The attached images show some of the wear patterns (the parallel double grooving is a consequence of the later conversion to double courses). Low
tension nylon strings were fitted at the time (under 5Kg ?). The wood of the fingerboard cannot be identified but like the rest of the wood from which
the guitar was made was of low quality - perhaps some kind of soft pseudo mahogany?
So why the localised fingerboard wear due to the strings? One key factor may be that the frets are made of brass - hard enough to show no wear from
the strings (as usually found in the softer 'nickel silver' type metals used for frets in higher quality instruments). This means that the minute (in
amplitude) transverse and longitudinal string vibrations were likely transferred over the hard frets directly into the finger board wood where -
together with finger pressure on the string, the fingerboard wood was eroded. Note that the fingerboard appears to have some kind of brittle varnish
type coating that, nevertheless, and not surprisingly, failed to prevent this damage. The other key factor is that the cheap wood of the fingerboard
is likely too soft to withstand the string pressure (although its specific hardness is at present untested and so unknown).
Moving on to the question of Sukar oud fingerboards - if you have no clue what the material is it is fernandraynaud you obviously possibly objectively
assess how durable it might be in service. Sukar calls the wood "walnut of lions" which sounds like sales talk for the uninitiated to me as no such
walnut species seems to exist. More likely "oily walnut" is nearer the truth being simply soft walnut 'tarted up' with some kind of drying oil
(hopefully not 'snake oil' - just kidding!) applied to darken the appearance of the wood not to improve hardness?
I do not know of any true walnut species that even approaches a Janka hardness of 3600. Perhaps 'Brazilian Walnut', as it is known in the trade is
causing confusion? - but this wood is not walnut.
If Ovation uses 'vacuum- treated' walnut for fingerboards then this suggests that they are impregnating the wood with a chemical (methyl
methacrylate?) to make it acceptably harder - as is the case with some treated Maple guitar fingerboards. This is a good way to make low cost softer
woods like Walnut or Maple hard enough to make sericeable fingerboards.
In any case fernandraynaud if you feel that the fingerboard of your Sukar model 212 is already hard enough to be perfectly serviceable for years
(without any form of treatment) what is the problem?
Do I see the images of the 4 string bass? Yes - looks like a string imprint in a soft material. But what is the point of spreading a 'marshmallow soft
coating over a (hard) candy layer' if you reckon that the hard candy layer (the fingerboard wood) is itself hard enough for the job?
Apologies for being so negative!
[file]25340[/file] [file]25342[/file] [file]25344[/file] [file]25348[/file]
[file]25350[/file]
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
Don't people in practice play guitar by fingering right behind the fret?
Feedback from Sukar owners is that these dark fingerboards last a long time. The "of lions" was a literal translation from the Arabic, I don't know
what it really is. Every fingerboard wears. I would prefer slowing it down if possible. Are you saying that it's "of no real significance",
impossible, or ?
A (lighter wood) Sukar Model 1 fingerboard, owners have said, does not normally last 3 years of 3+ hours a day playing without serious grooving . My
coated Model 1 did. I think Baglamatzis has it now.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes - theoretically a string should be stopped immediately behind a fret but in practice the actual width of a fingertip or other physical limitations
(hand flexibility/ complexity of chord shape/fret spacing etc.) means that a string will be stopped some distance behind the fret. For example look at
the image that you previously posted of your Martin D-18 guitar fingerboard and note the set back from the frets of the fingernail scarring and
staining left by the fingertips. My images are at a greater scale of magnification but I would suggest that set back from the frets in the range of 5
mm to 10 mm would not be unusual for a guitar of say 63 cm string length. Some of the fingerstains on the Martin fingerboard seem to extend back to
around the mid point between the frets?
I am only suggesting that a very hard fingerboard material will likely be much more resistant to string wear and last longer (perhaps for the useful
life of an instrument) than a softer material without need for repair or application of maintenance intensive sacrificial protective coatings (if that
is their function). Hard tropical hardwoods are costly and becoming increasingly difficult to obtain so artificially hardening of softer, cheaper and
readily available softer woods such as maple or walnut by complete chemical impregnation would be the way to go. I do not currently have any
information about the % increase in hardness that might be achieved by full chemical impregnation techniques.
Has anyone asked the Sukar factory to provide precise information about the woods they use in the construction of their instruments - using the
internationally accepted terminology for description of wood species? It would be unreasonable to expect costly high grade woods to be used on the
cheaper grade of oud coming out of the factory but customers should at least be reliably informed about what they are paying for and getting. A worn
out fingerboard after only three years use playing three hours a day seems to me to be a rather poor life suggesting use of an unsuitably soft
fingerboard material. Does the Sukar factory provide harder grade fingerboards for extra cost as an option for each model?
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
As far as i know, nobody but Luttgutt has ever obtained ANY information from Sukar. It would appear that going to Aleppo to try again might be tricky.
The model 1 is the least expensive oud he offers. 3+ hours a day for 3 years is a lot of playing. Ask David B. about typical wear. The fact remains my
coated one was unscathed. Applying some Tru-oil like on rifle stocks once a year is a small price.
Sukar's higher end models like the 212 in the photo do use a harder darker wood, though who knows what it is. It's academic, it works, nobody's
ripping it out.
But now that we agree that widespread use of the tropical hardwoods is becoming a bit impractical, maybe we can figure out how to best retro-improve
the durability of what we get?
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Perhaps the fingerboard on your Sukar model 1 just happened to be of suffient hardness without need for any coating at all - given the wide variation
of physical properties of wood species? How hard is 'Truoil' as a finish anyway?
"maybe we can figure out how to best retro-improve the durability of what we get?" . As already mentioned I intend to undertake the surface treating
wood samples (particularly Maple) with a variety of chemicals to determine if in depth penetration is possible together with significant hardening.
When I eventually get around to it, the results will be posted for general information - subject of a separate topic in this forum
|
|
|
Luttgutt
Oud Junkie
Posts: 578
Registered: 1-10-2009
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
Mood: Curious
|
|
Hi Tony and all!
Yes, per today I own 6 Sukar ouds. And the wood on the finger boards is
1- Eboney on 3 ouds
2- Dark Rosewood (don't know wich tipe) on one oud
3- Dark walnat on one.
4- and lighter walnat on one.
the oldest oud (eboney) is from 2008. The newest (also eboney) is from 2010.
I play about 2 hours a day. That is 20 min per oud per day in average.
And I have no problems with any of the fingerboards (the shellac couting goes out fast under the strings, but the wood itself is still free for
rippels. None what so ever).
I have used 6 coats of true oil on the rosewood. And I am pleased with the result (no trace under the strings whatsover!).
But I have to say that I always keep my nails short :-)
Best regards to you
The wood might be dead, but the oud is alive.
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
Hey Geko, what bringeth you out of the woodwork? Do you know what Ibrahim uses on the standard 212 and 14? It looks like a low grade ebony, but ?
John, I haven't yet tried Tru-oil, but it's what everybody uses on both their prize rifles and utilitarian AKs. What i used was labeled as "tung
oil".
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
When I had an interest in target shooting with antique firearms over 20 years ago I did some gunsmithing work. A replica percussion lock, black
powder, 'plains rifle' that I made then had a black walnut stock that I finished with 'Truoil'. As I recall the stuff was easy to apply and dried
quickly (unlike the traditional linseed oil finish) and gave the required matte hand rubbed finish. A shiny varnished gun stock looks terrible. The
purpose of the oiled finish is to waterproof the wood not harden it. Not sure what AK 47's are finished with, however.
Must take a look at that gun again to remind myself how the finish looks. I do not have any 'Truoil' but I did post some time ago on the forum an
'equivalent' home brew version.
Still not sure from luttgutt's observations if fingerboard wear (if any) is in any way reduced due to the application of either an oil or varnish
coat. The shellac coating does not appear to have made any difference (being softer than the underlying wood?). After 6 coats of Truoil on the
rosewood there is no sign of wear - but how does this compare to the fingerboard before it was treated with Truoil? Did it show excessive wear before
being treated? Was excessive wear the reason for treating the fingerboard with 6 coats of Truoil - or did it just seem like a good idea at the time?
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
