|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Are there any other green tinted pressure treated woods than CCA ?
- 2 About the strange delete in Timber treatment
- 3 Major Edit
- 4 Pitch=Treatment?
- 5 Uncited reference
- 6 Revert
- 7 Wood preservation of timber products through charring and burning.
- 8 Fire Retardant Treated
- 9 FEQ
- 10 Tanalisation
- 11 Osmosis process
- 12 Wood treated with car oil
- 13 What is AC2 treated lumber?
- 14 hardware options
- 15 Tung Oil?
- 16 Neem seed oil misplaced
- 17 wood turning
- 18 mold
- 19 There should be a section on copper naphthenate
- 20 Notifiable?
- 21 ALSC reference in AWPA section is intentionally misleading, suggest that it be removed
Are there any other green tinted pressure treated woods than CCA ?
I had some work done on a deck today, and voiced concern about the green strips running through the wood and was told only that they won't sell that to you any more. Rblythe1 14:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
What's "Wolmanized" lumber? My dad always called the green stuff that, but I don't see the term here.
Daibhre 11:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
what does a sawmill do?
Well - technically, that's not true. The "sawmill" is the device that performs the task, not the "facility." Daibhre 11:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Daibhre, but you are wrong there. According to the OED a 'Sawmill' is "a factory in which wood is sawn mechanically into planks or boards". The "device" which performs the task is the saw, the mill is "a building fitted with machinery for manufacturing processes, e.g. cotton-mill" (OED). Hence a sawmill is the facility or buildings housing the saw. A Taxed Mind (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yet if you take into consideration the likes of Petersons in New Zealand who design and manufacture portable sawmills, it could be debated that their design of 'Sawmill' is in fact a device? A portable sawmill by design doesn't fit into the category of facility - or factory. Tony.brown.nz (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 
About the strange delete in Timber treatment
Hi Nathan, Maybe you are right about reverting my deletion. The deletion by the way, was actually a reverting to the first thing Bridgman wrote (which I found more relevant to the subject).
Finding other external links is rather difficult because the sodium silicate timber treatment is only offered by one young company TimberSil, and is therefore not in general use (Google it, everything leads to this company). What really triggered my action was the fact that every mention of sodium silicate-based timber treatment in Wikipedia was done by user Bridgman, who in my opinion is Gary Bridgman, public relation director of this same company TimberSil . I therefore concluded (maybe too quick) that we are dealing here with someone who is trying to sell his product on Wiki. If you have an other opinion, that’s all right. 18.104.22.168 10:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Confessions of a PR flack
One of my current PR clients is indeed Timber Treatment Technologies. Their product, TimberSIL, will prove to be what economists call a "disruptive technology" in that other producers will eventually be forced to imitate this one to remain in business. Normally, my task is to convince editors to assign articles about my clients, but I have been retained by TTT to manage the high number of inbound calls from trade, academic and consumer media outlets. I am also tracking potential attempts by producers of the environmentally questionable forms of treated lumber to prevent TimberSIL from coming to market. Their lobbying efforts have turned it into de-facto contraband in Missouri. Against this yin/yang scenario, Wikipedia is not a viable "selling platform" for TimberSIL, even if that were allowed. The one external link to TTT's site takes the viewer to a list of historic applications of sodium silicate and does not attempt to hawk the product. This forum simply provides an opportunity to present neutral references about a product that is changing an industry.
Prior to my current position, I was a co-author of a Lonely Planet guidebook, a trade magazine editor and a contributor to Utne Reader, as well as president of a non-profit environmental group (wetland stuff), so I would ask my fellow Wikiputlians to consider my journalistic and civic bona fides in addition to the neutral POV that I assumed in my contributions. If y'all still think I've been a shill, I respect your judgement and appreciate the chance to discuss this.
Gary Bridgman 04:04 1 Feb 2006
- Thanks for your candid reply, Gary. I think the best thing you can do to make your contributions more credible is to provide references to (preferably freely available/web available) independent studies. You are probably in the best position to find these, and given a few of those people will find it hard to argue self-promotion. Perhaps some study measuring the resistance to fire or rot. njh 19:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I stumbled over this article while researching lumber treatments (i.e. while acting as merely a reader) and something felt "wrong" about the sodium silicate-related portions of this page. It appears to give that product undue weight, given its young age relative to the others and apparent lack of verifiability. The external links are to the manufacturer's site and a page on the Popular Science site which is almost certainly not editorial material (no author is shown but it's likely the vendor: an issue of lack of verifiability). From what I understand of Wikipedia's policies much of the material should be pruned. I suggest removing the questionable popsci.com link, and moving most of the remaining content (including the science fair link) to the sodium silicate page or removing it (as it provides no useful content related to timber treatment). A suggested wording for what's left: "Sodium silicate is a relatively recent treatment which preserves wood from moisture and insects and possesses some flame-resistant properties. Sodium silicate-treated lumber may be a safer alternative to both CCA and ACQ." Certainly the current last sentence shouldn't be left in without a reliable (verifiable, independent) source to back it up. I'd do this myself but as a rookie Wikipedian I don't have a good feel for when "Talk" should be turned into action. (Sorry Gary, but this is my opinion. I know your job must be tough, but I think you're using Wikipedia inappropriately to do it. Please at least dig up one truly independent, credible source. If you can't do that (as Nathan asked in February), your contributions really should be pruned heavily.) --PeterHansen 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have read the promotion article from TimberSIL concerning their so-called revolutionary Sodium silicate preservatives; there are several mistakes and unfathomable claims such as that: “effective even on traditionally difficult-to-treat woods, such as Douglas fir and hemlock”
- To manage this, one would have to either:
- reverse the permanent pit aspiration that takes place by spruce and Douglas fir
- have a preservative that has a molecule size as small as H2O which would be given around three weeks to diffuse into the wood, this however is not possible and if it were than not economical.
- To manage this, one would have to either:
- Sodium Silicate can not be fixated in wood meaning it leaches (it slowly comes out of the wood) making it in unpractical for use outdoors or near ground lying areas. Nevertheless TimberSIL claims that one could use this for the interior side of Windows or for wood within a house. The best way to protect wood from insect or fungal attack is to keep it dry. Usually there are no high moisture levels in a house, thus making it unnecessary to treat it with chemicals.
- Furthermore the link to 10th grade science project consist of a list of competitors of the ”West Springfield High School 1998 Science Fair” with no scientific data what so ever, making it useless for research.
- I find it irresponsible to advertise for such unproven and untested products in such a definite language in Wikipedia. That is why I will delete the links and replace the description of Sodium silicate with an accurate description. --Lumber Jack 19:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added several pages worth of information about application processes, history, incising ect. ect… to this article, and would like to move it from “Timber treatment” to “Wood Preservation” as that would be a more suitable name. This information comes from my engineering diploma project “Sap displacement”. I ask those who feel comfortable with this subject to review and discuss my changes. --Lumber Jack
- Excellent work, much improved both in terms of content and organization and better written as well. I don't have anything to add in terms of the actual content, where you obviously know what you are talking about. However, I believe it would benefit from a little more organization/structure work. For example, the introductory sections under under "Preservatives" and "Application processes" could be moved to the top and/or history section which is rather thin. The "hazards" section should also be close to the top, and not have its separate section. The history section should be beefed up. The introduction to the "Preservatives" and "Application processes" should give a summary overview of what follows. Let me know what you think of my suggestions before I dive in. Luigizanasi 05:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the Introduction doesn´t summarize anough of the content. I would be glad if you could look into that. One should also “beef up” the Introduction from Application Processes and Preservatives and the section History. If you feel fit for the task, go for it.
- Organizationwise I would leave it as it is. I also have a lot of information about “Chemical wood Preservatives” but I haven’t found time to write it all down and place it in the Article.
- Eventaully, I would also like to creat two new chapters, first “structaul wood preservation” (how is one supposed to build a building so that it isn´t vunerable to decay) and second “physical wood preservation” (wood treatment with e.g. pulver layers) that don´t directly have anything to do with “chemical wood preservation”
- --Lumber Jack second account 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This article includes a biblical reference to Noah applying pitch to the ark. I wouldn't consider this wood treatment. It's my understanding that pitch waterproofs a boat by filling cracks between wood, but the pitch isn't applied to the entire surface of the lumber and is not there to preserve the wood, so much as to preserve the buoyancy of the boat. If no one objects on this talk page in the next 2 or 3 weeks, I'm going to delete the reference. --Osbojos 05:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Pitch can be/was used do deter seaclamps/shells and other water dwelling species. --Lumber Jack second account 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
From the "Chromated copper arsenate (CCA)" section:
- However some consumer outlets such as Home Depot were still reported to be selling CCA lumber long after the ban went into effect.
This should probably be cited; I've deleted it in the meantime.
The words common, modern, generally or typical are indefinite. These words are all present in the “LOSP”-posting. Indefinite terms should have no place in an Encyclopedia. That is why I will edit this posting. Hopefully future anonymous authors make serious Posting that are balanced and don’t just try to sell a product. --Lumber Jack second account 00:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Also for anonymous authors that prize the use of LOSP, Vacuum-Treatment is also a PRESSURE TREATMEN. --Lumber Jack second account 01:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with the page Wood preservation on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Pcbene 01:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Around 60% of the article Wood preservation comes from my college diploma project. From July the 3rd until 5th of this year, I posted one chapter of my project into this article. Since then I have edited and observed this article as well as it’s German counterpart Holzschutz.
- I would like to make clear that:
- * MY EDITS WERE NOT AN EXPERIMENT OR A TEST.
- * I AM NOT A NEWCOMER
- If you have the same excessive knowledge over Wood, Lumber, Chemicals, Preservation and Construction as I do, then I am willing to discuss your revert, otherwise please except my revert of the article to the stance of my last edit.
- I would advise you:
- to research who has edited an article in the last year.
- to discuss a revert beforehand.
- and edit mistakes in a article before / rather than reverting.
- After all, reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly
- Thank you for your understanding
Wood preservation of timber products through charring and burning.
How about an edit to include for the preservation of wood products through fire. I understand that this has been a traditional way to preserve wood, have seen it being carried out and am wanting to try it myself. I also understand that archaeologists frequently find fire has accidently preserved timber products.
A Taxed Mind 19:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- as far as I know it has been used but is not useful. After burning, a layer of char is produced, which isn't tasty for most insects or fungi (not all are deterred), but you only need to leave a bit uncharred or the charr gets scrapped and it is as if you hadn't treated it.
- --Lumber Jack second account 22:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with A Taxed Mind. As far as I know charring (scorching?) was used for centuries before the advent of modern techniques, and so was incredibly useful. Timber posts were stuck into a fire and the resulting charred, pointy end was then hammered into the ground. I've done a quick search and can't find anything, unfortunately, apart from to say that I saw it used on and episode of Grand Designs last week to treat timber cladding. They used a roofing torch to toast the timber before installing it, but it certainly wasn't charred. I'd like to know more.
- nagualdesign (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
While charring wood would naturally produce creosote a known and widespread preservative, it would never have wide spread use for any structural or load bearing application as the charring would dramatically reduce the strength and integrity of the wood. Ornamental use of charred wood would also be undesirable due to the smell and mess. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Fire Retardant Treated
I added the Fire Retardant Treated section in hopes that it would be expanded on. I have yet to find a good answer online. If someone could add a bit more information to the section it would be greatly appreciated. Thesi 15:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Thesi
- Thesi there are three approaches that I know of, of how to make Wood fire retardant.
- The first is the use of a chemical treament that upon higher heat turns into foam. This foam creats a protective layer over the treated would stopping it from catching fire for a certain amount of time. Eventauly the foam loses its retardant capacity and the wood catches fire. Sorry, I don't remember a chemical formula or a brand name for this but it is used often in wood used in train or subway wagons.
- Second: a rough surface catches fire easier than a smooth surface, so creat a smooth surface.
- The third: When wood burnes then depending on which species, density and surface it burns at a perticular speed, e.g. 1cm per hour or 3/8in per hour. However this doese not continue for ever, after a certain burning depth it stops around 4cm or bit more than 1in. The already burnt wood creats a layer protecting the unburnt wood. Imagine if you put a large piece of wood on a fire and it doesn't burn all the way. Then the next day you cut through it. Around the outsides the wood is charred and on the inside it is unscaved. This is the advantage of wood over steel, wood maintaines its carrying capacity during a fire, steel loses it over it's whole section when heated (and turns into gamma steel). Thus if the wood section is dimensioned large enogh it can still hold up a building during and after a fire.
- --Lumber Jack second account 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
All tiles in teak wood, unfinished, sanded, FEQ, KD 10-12%. I dont know what is FEQ, anyone could be explain??
- Niether do I
--Lumber Jack 16:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- FEQ (First European Quality) is a common wood industry acronym for top quality wood. Googling the phrase +"first european quality" -"life survey" will elicit numerous references. JimScott (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi RickBeton, I find it great that you've added some usefull information to the article, however I disagree some what with the placement of it.
The Pressure treatment described under Tanalisation fits that of the Fluctuation Pressure Process, and therefore I feel it is not a seperate process.
Chemical Preservatives fits that of Water borne / Chromat copper arsenate (CCA) I think we should put the term Tanalisation under Chromat copper arsenate (CCA)
High pressure sap displacement is a mechanised version of the Boucherie Process, and I feel it should therefore be a sub catogory of that process.
"a trade mark of Hicksons Ltd", I'm sure that Tanalisation is a "trademark" of Hicksons Ltd. but it Hicksons Ltd. is not the only company to do so, therefor I think we should take thier name out of the article. --Lumber Jack 16:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
About 80% down the page is what appears to be an orphan header:
Wood treated with car oil
My father use to work for a compeny where thy treated there wooden doors with normal car oil. Is there some one that can tel me why cant i do it with my wooden deck. THANX Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Seems like it would make your deck flammable. I've seen creosoted railroad tie fires and they can burn for quite a while. It isn't a large fire (flame-wise) but goes and goes and goes ... and in the end nothing left but ash. As far as I know, non-latex modern deck stains and such are flammable right out of the can but lose that aspect as the flammable carrier evaporates as the stain dries. JimScott (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
What is AC2 treated lumber?
AC2 is a patented micronized copper preservation system developed by Osmose Wood Preserving, AC2 is now owned by Koppers PC. One of the largest brands of AC2 is MicroPro manufactured and sold by Menards. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I read somewhere that the products sold as Tung Oil are not always Tung Oil. Some are petroleum distillates that are labeled Tung Oil for marketing purposes. Can anyone address this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Neem seed oil misplaced
people should be reminding (or instructed) of this. when "pressure treated" wood floors are weathered on top they are often nice on the underside, and simply need to be turned over - not treated with $200 paint job :)
Disagree, wood exposed to elements such as a deck should always be installed with the curve of the grain shedding water rather than retaining it. By flipping the wood, if initially installed correctly, will cause the boards to no longer shed water but collect it, causing warping, swelling, cracking, and promoting fungal decay. Additionally, reapplication of a water repellent or sealer will take significantly less man hours, justifying the small cost of the product. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
many have had thousands of dollars of wreckage from bad or zero mold advice AND ARE COMPLAINING FREQUENTLY ALL OVER THE INTERNET
mold feeds on non-poisonous natural oils and waxes (ie, not cedar): linseed, beeswax.
black mold will eat 1/4 centimeter to 1/2 centimeter concavity into an area of wood in a year that has untreated linseed: it's not simply a matter of sightliness
another factor is "big box store" brands are hacking this page. these brands hide what is in their products (cheap oils that are not treated) and change their formulas (you cannot rely on repeated formula) (some of these work fine - but apply a mold remediator first, might work)
mold should mentioned although the prattle about big box stores trying to ruin decks for $$$ more pruchases should not be removed (and by that i mean will get deleted)
There should be a section on copper naphthenate
There is not a section for copper naphthenate, even though copper naphthenate has been used effectively as a wood preservative for over 100 years. With many railroad ties, fence posts, and utility poles pressure treated with copper naphthenate each year in North America it seems like a huge oversight especially when neem seed and tung oil get mentioned. AWPA recently released a paper with the results of a 60 year field test on the efficacy of copper naphtenate. Additionally, copper naphthenate (2% copper as metal) is one of the select non-restricted use labeled preservatives approved for field treating end-cuts, holes, and abrasions of pressure treated wood in AWPA M4 standard [Section 7.1.1] (which is included in it's entirety in both the International Building Codes [IBC 2303.1.8] and International Residential Codes [IRC R319.1.1]). Copper naphthenate is also required as an end treatment by the limited warranties of many wood products pressure treated with micronized copper. The National Park service has also approved copper naphthenate as a substitute for pentachlorophenol, creosote and inorganic arsenicals. Beekeepers for many years have treated beehives with copper naphthenate (while the EPA has prohibited the practice in the United States in an attempt to combat colony collapse disorder, the practice is still widespread in places such as New Zealand and Australia).
For these reasons a section on copper naphthenate should be added to Wood Preservation.
In the Hazards section: "... industrial wood preservation operations are notifiable industrial activities ..." I suspect this means that some authority must be notified if you are running a wood preservation operation, but if you already have a license, what's the point? There are notifiable diseases that doctors must report to health central, and notifiable crimes that must be reported to copper central, but notifiable industrial activities? I couldn't find anything. Pergelator 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what that means either. At least within US FIFRA requires wood preservation be done under a commercial pesticide applicators license granted generally through individual states DEQ and/or Dept of Ag. Without further clarification and sourcing this language should probably be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
ALSC reference in AWPA section is intentionally misleading, suggest that it be removed
The ALSC reference toward the end of the AWPA section is intentionally misleading.
directly from ALSC's website reads:"In addition to the lumber accreditation program, the ALSC also administers accreditation programs for the quality marking of treated lumber produced under standards written and maintained by the American Wood Protection Association (AWPA)" -- http://www.alsc.org/geninfo_summary_mod.htm
This is completely different from as currently reads in the aricle: "Wood preservative systems produced under the AWPA standards system for the residential market are required to be inspected under the stringent American Lumber Standards Committee (ALSC) third party inspection system in order to assure compliance with AWPA standards."
I suggest that the ALSC mention in the AWPA be removed. If others feel that ALSC needs mentioning (keep in mind it is merely a third-party testing group and not standard setting) then it should have it's own section. If that is done however it then becomes necessary and incumbent to include testing bodies who actually create standards regarding wood preservation systems such as ICC-ES as well.
In my humble opinion ICC-ES deserves mention long before ALSC since preservation systems such as Viance's micronized coppers which could never pass the stringent requirements set forth by AWPA use ICC-ES reports to circumvent AWPA standards and be permitted for use under IBC/IRC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)