Blog List

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

Effect of Cd-containing wood ash on the microflora of coniferous forest humus You have access

Author
, , , , , , , , 

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2000.tb00697.x 43-51  First published online: 1 April 2000

Abstract

The use of wood ash in forestry has been questioned because the cadmium (Cd) concentration of ash, which varies between 1 and 20 mg kg−1 ash, exceeds the level allowed for fertilizers (3 mg kg−1) used in agriculture. To investigate the combined and separated effects of Cd and ash on the forest humus microflora, pumice or wood ash, spiked with a water-soluble (CdCl2) or -insoluble (CdO) form of Cd at three levels (0, 400 and 1000 mg kg−1), were applied at a fertilization level of 5000 kg ha−1 in a laboratory microcosm study. The trial consisted of 60 microcosms (five replications per treatment), which were incubated in darkness at +20°C and a constant relative air humidity of 60%. After two months the humus in the microcosms was sampled. Analyses of CO2 evolution to measure the overall microbial activity and of phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) pattern to measure microbial community structure were performed. The substrate-use patterns of Biolog EcoPlates were analyzed as a measure of bacterial functionality. Finally the bacterial 3H-thymidine incorporation in the presence of different concentrations of Cd and the number of colony forming units (cfu) of bacteria on nutrient agar in the presence of 0, 5 and 20 mg Cd l−1 agar were applied to measure Cd tolerance. The use of pumice (pH of humus under the pumice 4.0) did not induce any changes in the above variables compared to two untreated microcosms (humus pH 3.9). Pumice was therefore used to distribute the Cd evenly over the humus surface in order to estimate the possible effect of Cd without ash (pH of humus under the ash 7.0). The application of ash increased the microbial activity, changed the PLFA and substrate-use patterns and increased cfu compared to the humus under pumice. The form and level of Cd in the ash had no further effect on this result. In the humus under pumice the level, but not the form of Cd decreased the microbial activity and changed the PLFA pattern compared to the unspiked pumice. None of the treatments induced bacterial tolerance to Cd. Ash thus protected the humus microflora from the harmful effects of Cd.

For further details log on website :
http://femsec.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/1/43.abstract

Comparison of taxonomic, colony morphotype and PCR-RFLP methods to characterize microfungal diversity

Author
Lidia S. Watrud1
  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, Oregon 97333
  1. Kelly K. Donegan
  1. Dynamac Corp., 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, Oregon 97333
  1. Jeffrey K. Stone
  1. Oregon State University, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Corvallis, Oregon 97331
  1. Clarace G. Coleman
-Author Affiliations
  1. National Asian Pacific Center on Aging, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101

Abstract

We compared three methods for estimating fungal species diversity in soil samples. A rapid screening method based on gross colony morphological features and color reference standards was compared with traditional fungal taxonomic methods and PCR-RFLP for estimation of ecological indices of soil microfungal community composition. Normalized counts of colony morphotypes on dichloran rose bengal medium were used to estimate species richness (S) and evenness ( J) and to calculate Shannon’s diversity (H) and Simpson’s (SI) dominance indices. Isolates were obtained by dilution plating techniques from litter and soil layer samples taken from Douglas-fir forest and clear-cut areas at two locations in the Cascade Mountains. The highest correspondence (97%) was observed between taxonomic identification and RFLP patterns (32:33). Cladistic analyses of PCR-RFLP patterns indicated an 81% correspondence between RFLP patterns:colony morphotypes (33:41). A correspondence of 78% was observed between traditional taxonomic identification:colony morphotypes (32:41). Statistical analyses of ecological indices based on quantitative application of the colony morphotyping method indicated significant differences (P < 0.05) in fungal community composition between forested and clear-cut areas at the Toad Road site but not at the Falls Creek site. Comparisons of ecological indices based on traditional identification of taxa by microscopic characterization on defined culture media resulted in identical findings of statistical significance. The colony morphotyping approach is proposed as a screening method to identify potential effects of land management practices, edaphic factors and pollutants on microfungal diversity.

For further details log on website :
http://www.mycologia.org/content/98/3/384.abstract

Field and microcosm experiments to evaluate the effects of agricultural Cu treatment on the density and genetic structure of microbial communities in two different soils

Author
, , , , , 

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2006.00157.x 303-315  First published online: 1 November 2006

Abstract

The effects of Cu amendment on indigenous soil microorganisms were investigated in two soils, a calcareous silty clay (Ep) and a sandy soil (Au), by means of a 1-year field experiment and a two-month microcosm incubation. Cu was added as ‘Bordeaux mixture’ [CuSO4, Ca(OH)2] at the standard rate used in viticulture (B1 = 16 kg Cu kg−1 soil) and at a higher level of contamination (B3=48 kg Cu ha−1 soil). More extractable Cu was observed in sandy soil (Au) than in silty soil (Ep). Furthermore, total Cu and Cu-EDTA declined with time in Au soil, whereas they remained stable in Ep soil. Quantitative modifications of the microflora were assessed by C-biomass measurements and qualitative modifications were assessed by the characterization of the genetic structure of bacterial and fungal communities from DNA directly extracted from the soil, using B- and F-ARISA (bacterial and fungal automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis). In the field study, no significant modifications were observed in C-biomass whereas microcosm incubation showed a decrease in B3 contamination only. ARISA fingerprinting showed slight but significant modifications of bacterial and fungal communities in field and microcosm incubation. These modifications were transient in all cases, suggesting a short-term effect of Cu stress. Microcosm experiments detected the microbial community modifications with greater precision in the short-term, while field experiments showed that the biological effects of Cu contamination may be overcome or hidden by pedo-climatic variations.

For further details log on website :
http://femsec.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/2/303.abstract

Bacterial community structure and activity in different Cd-treated forest soils You have access

Author
, , , , , 

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2006.00163.x 278-292  First published online: 1 November 2006

Abstract

In this study we compared indicators of Cd bioavailability (water extracts, Lakanen extracts, free ions) and ecotoxicity in forest soils with contrasting physico-chemical characteristics. Soil samples were treated with CdCl2 solutions (0, 0.1, 1, 10 and 100 mM) and incubated for 30 days. Microbial activity indexes (acid phosphatase, β-glucosidase, basal respiration) and changes in bacterial community structure using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) fingerprinting were investigated. The Cd concentrations measured ranged from 1% to 37% of the total additions in water extracts, to higher levels in Lakanen extracts. Effects of Cd were observed at bioavailable concentrations exceeding United Nations/European Economic Commission UN/ECE guidelines for total Cd in the soil solution. Basal respiration was the most affected index, while enzymatic activities showed variable responses to the Cd treatments. We also noticed that soils with pH higher than 6.7 and clay content higher than 50% showed inhibition of basal respiration but no marked shift in bacterial community structure. Soils with lower pH (pH <5.8) with less clay content (<50%) showed in addition strong changes in the bacterial community structure. Our results provide evidence for the importance of relating the effects of Cd on the soil communities to soil properties and to bioavailability.

For further details log on website :
http://femsec.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/2/278.abstract

Soil microbial community structure in cucumber rhizosphere of different resistance cultivars to fusarium wilt

Author
, 
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.00859.x 456-463  First published online: 1 June 2010

Abstract

Cucumber fusarium wilt is a common soil-borne disease. We hypothesize that there is a relationship between the severity of disease and soil microbial ecology. In this work, culturable microbial populations, lipid fatty acid and community-level physiological profiles (CLPP) from rhizosphere soils of four different cucumber cultivars were investigated. Comparatively higher actinomycetes, mycorrhizal colonization and higher ratios of bacteria to fungi were found in the two resistant cultivars compared with the two susceptible cultivars. CLPP analysis showed that catabolic diversity indices were higher in the presence of two resistant cultivars. Phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) profiles suggested that fungal (18:2ω6,9c) PLFA was enriched in the rhizosphere soils of the two susceptible cultivars, but some bacterial (16:0 and 15:0a) PLFAs were found in a lower relative abundance in these soils. The neutral lipid fatty acid 16:1ω5, which is an indicator of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, was enriched in the rhizosphere soils of the two resistant cultivars. All the three methods suggested that plant genotype had a significant impact on the soil microbial community composition and activity, and the differences in the rhizosphere microbial community may result in the differences in the resistance to fusarium wilt.

For further details log on website :
http://femsec.oxfordjournals.org/content/72/3/456.abstract

Preface

The attitude towards wooden boats is often almost superstitious. As if the behaviour and use of wooden boats were some sort of magic, that can be exercised only by the chosen ones.

It ain't like that! A wooden boat is based on biology, chemistry and physics, just as anything else in the nature.
Event the beauty of a wooden boat is hardly magic. Human beings are used to seeing curves created by nature as "beautiful". Wood curves in a natural way. Curves of a wooden boat mainly come from the way wood curves naturally, that's why those curves are beautiful.
Other types of boats get their shape from lines drawn by designers. It is rather easy to draw ugly lines.

Of course there can be ugliness on a wooden boat, but usually it is the horrible, out-of-proportions cabin, not the hull itself.
Grasping the understanding of a few basic facts opens the understanding to wooden boats. Before these facts are clear, it's not worth starting to build a single wooden boat.

So let's see...

For further information log on website :
http://koti.kapsi.fi/hvartial/wood/wood0.htm

The "correct" construction of a wooden boat

The construction of a typical wooden boat is not so "wrong" that it would not last for decades with proper surface treatment and care. But it might be fruitful to think of ways to do it better. It shoud be possible to build a boat that would tolerate moisture changes and stay undamaged without any surface treatment at all.

Or maybe this is just unfounded optimism :-)

Wooden boat are built in two principally different ways, carvel and lapstrake. People tend to see the difference only in ways of working, or difference in appearance. But the difference is deeper than that.
Carvel and lapstrake are two different approaches to build a boat that tolerates wood swelling and shrinking without breaking or developing leaks.
Both types could be built to tolerate moisture produced dimensional changes. But the builder must honor the principal differences in the two different techniques:
  • In a carvel built boat each stake lives a life of its own. There is a slit between strakes. The width of the slit changes as the widhts of the planks change, due to changes in moisture. There has to be some kind of flexible sealing in the plank seam. The sealing has to be so flexible, that it fills the slit at its narrowest and at its widest.
  • In a lapstrake boat the whole hull skin is one piece, there is no slit between strakes however the skin swells of shrinks. The other structures (frames, stems...) have to flex in such a way, that the hull skin can swell and shrink freely.

A carvel built boat

The strakes and slits between them shall be dimensioned in such a way, that when the strakes are most swollen, they don't press (=crush) each other but the flexible seal between them is pressed to its thinnest.

Each strake can be fastened to each frame and stem with only one fastener.
Strakes should be radially sawn to minimise swelling and cupping.

When the strakes are at their narrowest, when they are dry, the flexible seal must still stretch to fill the slit between strakes.
Strakes shall be narrow to stay put with only one fastener per frame, and to keep the slit changes within the limits of seal elasticity.
And the fasteners shall be more flexible than nails or rivets, in order to prevent wood from crushing under the fastener head. Possibly a flexible "pillow" between each strake and frame.
Boats are not consturcted like this in practice.

A lapstrake boat

The golden era of building lapstrake boats in line with the nature of wood was during the Viking age, sometime around years 800 to 1000.
Lots of details of buried and wrecked Viking ships and boats have been documented. The ways of construction differ from modern methods. Some seem strange, some even misguided.
Why the boats were constructed the way they were constructed has been given surprisingly little thought. It seems, that in the archaeology science it is only customary to ask "what?", but not "why?"
But since I'm not an archaeologist, I may ask "why?", and work upon an answer.
Here's one:
The purpose of the special construction details in Viking ships was to prevent the ships from breaking, by allowing wood swell and shrink freely.

At least three special construction details found in Viking ships could be explained by good understanding of wood moisture behaviour:
  • Frames, or rather the lack of them.
  • The way hull strakes meet the stems.
  • The way strakes are lashed to frames.
Not all details can be found on all ships, however.

Frames

The frames of many Viking ships don't stretch from sheer to keel to sheer in one piece. The frames are more like a set of frame stubs supported by a star like lattice.
The frames of Skuldelev 3 and Skuldelev 5 ships were contructed this way.

The star like support lattice (red) consists of the seat, a floor support beam, two vertical supports between them and a single vertical support between the floor beam and the keel frame stub (yellow).
There is a frame stub at every point of the star. At the seat ends (pale blue), at the floor beam ends (pale green) and at the lower end of the lower vertical support (yellow).
The keel (violet) is NOT attached to the lowest frame stub (yellow) at all. The other frame stubs are attached to planking by lashings or a single nail and lashings. But the frame stubs are not attached to each other.
The construction is solid as far as pressure against ship sides is considered. Much firmer than an ordinary frame would be.
Yet it is very flexible in the direction where the ship planking swells and shrinks. Swelling and shrinking forces are opposed only by bending stresses of the seat and floor beam.

The way hull strakes meet the stems

In a modern boat hull strakes meet the stems at more or less right angles. The ends of the strakes split, because the plumb attachment to the stem does not yield with stakes swelling or shrinking.

In a Viking ship the last stakes near the stems were carved out of naturally curved wood. This way the stakes meet the stems with grains almost parallel. 

The stem and strake both swell and shrink in the same direction - no stresses in either member.

The way strakes are lashed to frames

Viking ship strakes were lashed to frames with sinew or spruce root lashings (tree and iron nails were used, too, of course).
Any modern man would make a strake lashing something like this. Drill holes to the starke, run the lashing through the holes, around the frame and back through the holes.

How would a lashing like that behave when the strake swells? It should allow the stake to slide along the frame, to allow the strake swell freely.
But the strake does not swell just widthwise. It also swells thicknesswise. Tightening the lashing, making the stucture stiff just when some slackness was needed. Well, it will be slack when the swelling stake rips the lashing open ;-)
But Vikings used a lashing something like this.

When the strake was hewn lumps of wood were left on the strake on either side of each frame location. Holes for the lashings were drilled only through these lumps, not the whole strake.
An extremely laborious structure. What's the point?
When the strake swells, the lump on the inner surface swells inward, loosening the lashing, letting the strake swell and slide sideways.
And of course, it is a good idea not to make holes in Your boat hull. It may also be nice to be able to renew a broken lashing underway without going under the ship ;-)

If structures like these are good, why have they been given up? Why did they not live until today?
I suppose the "quicker, more, faster" came along. Constructions described above are laborious, especially without the use of electric tools. (So why did Vikings not just start using electric tools? ;-)
Vikings might see carvel buils ships with their continuous frames in the Mediterrenean. "Hey, that's the way to build more ships quickly. More ships, more conquests. Let the old grayhead boatbuilders keep their 'proper ways of building'".
The only known documet describing Viking ship construction, the Bayeuxin tapestry gives a hint of the state of ship building in the end of the Viking era.

The tapestry describes the Norman attack perparations before the battle of Hastings in 1066. There was a great haste (hence the name Hastings? ;-). A great navy was needed yesterday. 600 ships were needed to carry 10-12000 men and 2500 horses across the English Channel. The longevity of the ships was of no consequence.

Boats and boat construction have always been improved. But based on what? Based on what father did.
Before the beginning of the 20th century there was hardly such a thing as "written history". Builders only knew the ways just before them, only the ways of the previous generation. No one could see back beyond that. Nor could anyone know how things were somewhere else.
Now that history is known we can play a mental game, that was never before possible: We can jump back a thousand years, and take a construction detail. And start improving that detail with modern tools and materials. We are sure to end up with something totally different than what the thousand years of generation to generation development ended up with. Possibly something better!
Taking the structures of a Viking ship as a starting point it could today be possible to design a wooden boat, that would be long lasting even with bad maintenance.
A mental game like this was never before possible. But does anyone play the game?
These guys seem to have played some :-)

For further information log on website :
http://koti.kapsi.fi/hvartial/wood/wood6.htm

Surface treatment of a wooden boat

The purpose of surface treatment of a wooden boat is, at least, to:

1. Prevent water from getting into the wood

Why should water not get into wood?
  • First of all, as explained earlier, wood swells and shrinks along with its moisture content. A wooden boat is full of structural details, where pieces of wood have been joined with crossing grain directions (as an example, every plank is fastened to every frame at both edges). A furniture carpenter would never build anything like that. Wooden furniture structures are always floating, allowing wood to swell and shrink freely as its moisture content changes. Floating structures have not been used in wooden boats for centuries, so a modern wooden boat breaks itself, if wood moisture content is allowed to fluctuate.
  • Secondly, wood rotting fungi can only act on wood, when wood moisture content is 25-30 % or more. In addition to that, fungi need warmth and "edible" wood.
  • Thirdly, wet wood is weaker than dry wood.
There is no way to prevent movement of moisture to and from wood totally. One can only slow the movement down. It would be ideal if the annual wetting-drying cycle (and shorter cycles) would be slow, small and would not drift either way (that is, the wood would not little by little get drier nor wetter than it was when the boat was built).

Water comes in two brands. As liquid and as vapor.
Water vapor gets absorbed in wood cell pipe walls, but does not under any circumstances cause the cell hollow to fill.
Liquid water gets absorbed in wood cell pipe walls, and can also fill the cell hollow.
Cell walls can absorb water up to 25-30 % of wood dry weight. The wood moisture content can thus rise to 25-30 % without any water in the cell hollow.
This can only happen, if the air relative humidity stays at 100 % for a long period of time. Air humidity does not stay this high for long periods in most natural environments. Water vapor will not make wood moist enough to maintain growth of rot, in most practical cases. Liquid water is needed to enable rot.
Liquid water can raise the moisture content of wood above 100 %, because water not only saturates cell walls, but also fills all empty space within the cell structure. Wet wood can thus contain more water than wood, by weight.

Water vapor penetrates all wood surfaces rather equally. Liquid water, again, penetrates wood especially well parallel to grain, at wood ends. Less so perpendicular to grain. This is clear from the "cell pipe model". Water enters a pipe from the ends, not through the wall.
Wood dries by emitting water vapor. Water in the wood vaporizes on the surface. If a surface treatment slows down the movement of water vapor, it slows down wood drying.

A given surface treatment does not necessarily prevent liquid and vapor water movement in a similar manner.
The ordinary surface treatments slow the movement of liquid water in the order epoxy-polyurethane-alkyd-oil. But the differences are not huge.
With vapor the order of materials is the same, but there is a step between alkyd paints and oli paints. Oil paints and linseed oil don't slow down the movements of water vapor much. Some say oil treatment "breathes".

Wood gets wet, when it absorbs liquid water or water vapor.
Wood gets dry, when it emits water vapor.
A good boat paint should prevent both liquid and vapor water from getting into wood, but should allow water vapor to exit freely.
A paint like that does not exist.
Epoxy and plyurethane paints do prevent water (both liquid and vapor) from getting into wood. But when (and I don't write "if") wood finally gets wet, it stays wet, since the paints also prevent vapor from getting out of wood.
Oil paints or treatment with linseed oil do allow wood to dry, but also do allow water vapor to moist wood.
Things being this way, the question "what kind of paint should a wooden boat be painted with?" cannot be answered unambiquously. Arguments both for and against can be given to all paint types.

Since wood and surface treatments behave as described, we can conclude:
  • The ends of every single piece of wood should be treated with a coating that prevents entry of liquid water. With epoxy during the boat construction, or with linseed oil once the boat is finished. Only linseed oil is running enough to penetrate the seams, that were closed during boat construction. At least in principle. Water will penetrate in practice. It has time on its side.
  • The worst possible alternative is to leave wood ends untreated, but cover the sides with something preventing water vapor flow. Wood will suck liquid water through the ends, and never dry. An example of this would be painting a ready made boat inside and out with epoxy.
  • "Varnish or paint on the outside, linseed oil on the inside." The old traditional approach is good. Varnish or paint keep the wood from absorbing water from the sea or lake, linseed oil allows the boat to dry from the inside.
    Assuming, of course, that liquid water is kept out of the boat, and the boat interior is well ventilated.
    This old "recipe" has another benefit. Cleaning, sanding and repainting boat interiors is typically horrible, if not worse. There are lots of holes, slits and corners. Re-oiling is a lot easier. There is no need to remove nor sand old oil, and oil is easily running and sperading.
  • The cell hollows in wood can be filled with hardening oils (called oil saturation) to leave water less space to dwell. Wood species that have closed cells may not saturate well. These species have, just because of the cells being losed, some natural tolerance against water, so the balance may be even.
  • Oil saturation underneath a paint or varnish is also a good combination, as oil prevents water from geting into wood when the paint surface gets scratched.
  • But it may also be harmful, if oil prevents paint from sticking to the wood.
A typical oil saturation recipe consists of 1/3 raw linseed oil, 1/3 thinner (pine turpentin is often recommended) and 1/3 liquid anti-rot compound. The anti-rot is mostly thinner. When wood cells have been saturated with a slution like this, the cell hollows are full of liquid. To start with. But as the thinner evaporates, only the 1/3 of linseed oil remains to harden
It would seem, that to reach a very good saturation result the saturation should be repeated several times, with enough time (days...) in between saturations. This would ensure cells filled with oil, not just evaportaing thinner. This procedure would not be very economical, of course.
Or to use a preparation with a higher oil content. What would be best? Remains to be investigated.

2. Poison the wood in such a way, that rot would not grow

In case the surface treatment cannot keep the wood dry enough for rot not to grow, wood can be saturated with fungisides.
In a typical linseed oil mixture the anti-rot potion is a mixture of thinner (some 99 %), tolyle fluanide (typically < 1 %) and zink naphtenate (typically < 1 %). Tolyle fluanide is a fungiside, zink naphtenate an anti mold compound. The purpose of these is to poison the wood, but also poison the linseed oil, which also is food for fungi.
If You want to poison the wood separately, a sensible working method would be to apply ani-rot agent first, as such. Than let it dry properly before following treatments. Since anti-rot is mainly thinner, no furher poison nor oil can be absorbed by wood cells before the thinner has evaporated.
It is also possible to poison wood by ethylene glycol (anti freeze) or boron, which are water soluble. Unlike the thinner soluble anti-rot substances they go to where wood is wet. That is, to where fungi live. It is possible to kill existing fungi in wet wood with these water soluble poisons. Impossible with a thinner based poison.
The water solubility is also a problem, of course :-( These poisons get quickly washed away by water.

3. Protect wood from UV-radiation

UV-radiation breaks down wood lignin. Remeber, the glue between wood fibers. When lignin breaks down, cellulose fibers turn loose on the wood surface. Wood is shattered little by little.
Opaque paints are best protection against UV-radiation. Most varnishes have some added UV-protection. UV-protection in varnish is finely ground pigment. Little enough to let wood show through the varnish. But enough to prevent at least some UV-radiation from reaching the wood surface.
UV-radiation also breaks down the surface treatment. Epoxy as such would be enough to protect wood, but epoxy itself must be protected by paint or varnish.
Paint gives a much better protection than varnish. A good paint may last for 15 years. A good varnish may last three. Varnish "bubbles off" the wood, because wood underneath it breaks loose.

4. Make a wooden surface and boat good looking. Colored - natural - bright - shiny - matt

This is, of course, largely a matter of taste. But You can't go very much wrong if You leave the boat interior and decks wood colored, outside of the hull wood colored, white, dark blue, dark green or black.
Although my father taught me, that a black boat brings bad luck.

5. Make a boat visible

When the car ferry Estonia sank, rescue helicopters had difficulty finding the capsized life rafts, because bottoms of the rafts were black.
A white, yellow or orange boat color may save Your life one day.
The bad luck brought by a black boat may have an explanation here. A black boat in trouble on a stormy sea may be hard to find. This, if anything, is bad for the crew, although luck has nothing to do with it.
A drunk power boat driver may see a light colored boat better than a dark colored. But can he steer clear?

6. Decrease the temperature changes caused by direct sunlight

Temperature changes expand and contract wood. Partly by thermal expansion, partly by changes in moisture content. Heating speeds up moisture evaporation. Wood expansion and contraction break the boat.
A dark surface may get hot enough to soften epoxy and elastic sealants. A maximum allowable temperature is typically in the range of 50-60 degrees centigrade / 120-140 Fahrenheit. Again, use light colors.

7. Poison the surface of the hull to prevent algae and barnacle growth


8. Make the wood surface mechanically stronger


9. Make the wood surface dirt repellent





For further information log on website :
http://koti.kapsi.fi/hvartial/wood/wood5.htm

Why does a wooden boat leak?

A boat leaks if it has a hole. Boats are not designed nor built with holes. So a boat with a hole is broken.
If a wooden boat leaks, it is broken.

Why do people always talk about leaking wooden boats? Does a wooden boat get broken more easily than other boat types?
Yes, because wooden boats are constructed in such a way, that they break themselves if they are not surface treated and maintained properly.
How do they break themselves?

The theoretical swelling pressure of wood is calculated to be 1630 kp/cm2 / 24000 lbs/sqin. Pressures of about half of that have been measured. This is the pressure that is exerted by wood if it swells in an enclosure where it cannot expand.
Wood is an elastic material. A deformation caused by a force returns, when the force is removed. Like a spring or a piece of rubber.
But only to a limit.
The pressure that causes a permanent deformation to the surface of dry wood is in the range 10-100 kp/cm2 / 140-1400 lbs/sqin. This pressure depends on wood species. The breaking pressure of spruce and pine is about 30 kp/cm2 / 420 lbs/sqin. And this is for dry wood. For fresh or wet wood the pressure limit is about half of the dry wood value.
If You think of what happens on the cell pipe level, the pipes yield under pressure and return to their original shape, when the pressure is relieved. To a limit. When the pressure is high enough, the pipes crush and deform permanently.
When wood swells, the swelling pressure may be up to 50 times the pressure needed to break wood in a crosswise direction.

Let's do some "practical science" to see what this means in real world.
I hewed a piece of pine plank (floor planking, dried in a heated basement) to exactly fit the hole of an old roller bearing. The roller bearing will act as "an enclosure where wood cannot expand". The diameter of the hole, and thus also the width of the plank, is 80 mm (about 3 1/8").
"Swim and swell".
After four days of swelling the width of the plank end is 82 mm. It has swollen by about 2.5 %.
Back to the basement to dry.
After four days of drying the plank is loose in the bearing hole. Where the bearing has been the plank width now is narrower than it originally was. It's now about 78.5 mm. That is, the plank was crushed, broken.
You can just see a notch made by the bearing at the arrows.
In this little experiment the plank was crushed by almost the same amount it would have swollen, had it been free to swell.
In a wooden boat the same can take place always, when a strake swells between two other strakes. In a small area the same happens when a strake swells between two fasteners on a frame. On a yet smaller area this happens under each fastener head.

And what's that in practice? Let's see:
I made three "boat sides", small test specimens to imitate a side of a wooden boat, using three different techniques.
Each specimen (let's call them "test boats" from now on) consists of three full width strakes and one narrow. Two of the strakes I fastened in the way I thought to be "right" (which side out?), one in the "wrong way".
All "test boats" were made of dry 18 x 145 mm (3/4" x 6") spruce plank. I left this loose piece as a control. Since I took the piece in from the shed in september, it has shrunk by 1.7 % by the day after Christmas.
The first "test boat" is carvel. The two rightmost strakes are heart side towards frame. This seems to be most correct, since the strakes are fastened by the edges. The "frames" are of 21 x 45 mm (7/8" x 1 3/4") pine.
The second "test boat" is lapstrake with steam bent frames. Two rightmost strakes are heart side in. Theses strakes can freely expand outwards when cupping. The frames are of 20 x 20 mm (7/8" x 7/8") oak.
I planed the strakes only enough to get a flat seam width.
The third strake can cup freely also. There is plenty of room between the strake and frame.
The third "test boat" is lapstrake with hewn frames. Here the srakes are fastened in the middle, like used to be the practice on hewn frames. Now it would seem correct to fasten the strakes with heart side facing out. Two rightmost strakes are thus fastened, the third, the leftmost, is fastened "the wrong way". The frames are hewn out of pieces of pine floor planking.
I adjusted the frames to the strake cross sections. That is, I didn't force the stakes to any flatter shape than they happened to be.
Everybody take a bath.
All "test boats" are of plain wood. No surface treatment of any kind. They will absorb more water and swell more, and swell more quickly than real boats would. This is really an accelerated test.

After two days swelling the test board has swollen by 2.9 %. It is impossible to accurately measure the strakes in "test boats" now. Especially the lapstrake readings are very "about". But still very surprising!
The strakes in the "carvel boat" have swollen, from left to right, by about 3.1, 0.5 and 1.6 %.
The middle strake, between the two others, has swollen very little. On the basis of the "roller bearing experiment" I'd expect clear slits between strakes once they dry out.
The measurements from the "lapstrake boats" are not certain, since they have to be taken from the strake end. Anyway, it would seem that the strakes have swollen by about 4.3, 3.0 and 3.6 %.
And on the hewn frame version by about 4.6, 2.9 and 3.4 %.
The "heart side in or out" doesn't seem to have any effect at this point.
The measurements from the "lapstrake boats" were surprising. Measurements were not accurate, nor could they be directly compared with "free plank" measurements. But it was clear, that the strakes had been rather free to swell.
One often hears of how flexible a lapstrake boat is, but no one seems to know what it is that flexes. I've seen a claim that it's the frames. The frames would flex, since they are curved. But if that really would be the case, a boat would roll up when strakes swell and frames bend.

Roll up, how so?
Let's take an example. Think of a boat with a beam of two meters (6' 8"). Let's simplify things a bit, and assume the cross section of the hull to be a semicircle, and the thickness of the planking to be 20 mm (7/8"). Think of the cross section now. Since the beam on the boat is two meters, 2000 mm, the radius of the planking semicircle is 1000 mm. And since the planking is 20 mm thick, the radius of the semicircle of the frames is 980 mm. Correspondingly, the perimeter of the planking semicircle is (pi x 1000) mm, the perimeter of the frame (pi x 980) mm. And since both are semicircles, their (imagined) central angle is 180 degrees.
What happens, if the planking swells by 1 %? The planking perimeter grows to (pi x 1010) mm. But since wood does not swell lengthwise, remember, the length of the frame perimeter stays at (pi x 980) mm. If the planks stay on the frames, and frames bend, the planking and frames still form a part of a circle, with a difference of 20 mm in their radii.
But what are the radii? And what is the central angle?
Do some calculation, and You find out that if the 1 % swelling of the planking is taken up by frames bending, the new radius of the planking will be about 650 mm. That is, a boat with a two meters (6' 8") beam rolled up to a boat with a 1.3 m (4' 4") beam. And the central angle would be about 280 degrees. Three quartes of a circle.
Had the planks swollen by 2 % the boat would have rolled up to a pipe with a diameter of just below one meter (3' 4").
Nothing even approaching this takes place in the real world. So it must be something else, not the frames, that flex.



The "dry-wet" pictures above would seem to show, that the flexible part in the stucture are the rivets, that fasten the planks to the frames. And a part of the flexing takes place within the planks, that assume a clear S-shaped cross section.
The picture seems to hint, that every plank takes support on the right edge at the root of the rivet, pushing the top of the lefthand side rivet to the left. This way each rivet seems to bend to the left, and every plank twists to a S-cross section.

Every fastener head has crushed the wood clearly.

Back to drying.
To rule out a possible "overdrying", I checked the result when the reference plank was still 0.7 % swollen from the start of the test.
The carvel boat would leak like a sieve. Note the matchsticks between the planks.
The "roller bearing phenomenon" struck the carvel boat really badly.
The same phenomenon also hit all the fasteners. Tha planks were all loose, since the tree under the screw heads was crushed.
One could say the carvel boat was badly broken by a single swelling.
The clinker boats developed leaks, too. Not as bad as the carvel, though.
A gap gauge shows the slit between the plank edges to be 0.3 to 0.6 mm. This seems to be mainly due to wood having crushed under the rivet heads.

A wooden boat breaks herself, because her structure does not allow wood to swell freely.
When wood is not allowed to swell freely, it breaks internally, gets permanently crushed. When it dries and contracts, it will no longer fill the original space. There will be slits around.
Or if the edges of wood are fixed, the slit will appear at a weak point, somewhere in the middle of the plank.
The common belief, that a wooden boat "breaks by DRYING" is wrong.
A wooden boat breaks by SWELLING, the drying only makes the breakage visible.

Many structures in wooden boats are against the nature of wood. One could almost say many stuctures are "wrong".
A lot of harm caused by wrong structures can be compensated for by proper surface treatment and proper care. Both should aim at reducing the changes in wood moisture content, and thus changes in wood dimensions.
Proper care consists partly of keeping the surface treatment in good condition, but also of maintaining a balanced wetting-drying cycle. The cycle should not drift in either direction.
The Scandinavian experience shows, that a one year cycle (half a Year in water, half a year in a shed) is just manageable. With tedious surface treatment.
Life is probably easier in the areas where waters don't get frozen. Where boats can stay in water all the time, or come in and out of water daily, all year around.

For further information log on website :
http://koti.kapsi.fi/hvartial/wood/wood4.htm

Advantages and Disadvantages of Fasting for Runners

Author BY   ANDREA CESPEDES  Food is fuel, especially for serious runners who need a lot of energy. It may seem counterintuiti...