Mystery of the Minerals, are they there or not? Options

[JimMurphy]

I wonder if Peter of Mantua needed to use minerals in his spectacular varnish.

Jim

[Andres Sender]

John--there's always nonsense, but a few nuggets manage to find their way in the mix now and then, indeed I think you have posted some relevant pigment-making insights on occasion.

No I don't think it's just a matter of identifying pigments. Mainly because the composition of the minerals is incompatible with known pigments and ...

Well actually gypsum and chalk have both been used historically as lake bases as I suspect you know. All we have to do is figure out what the feldspar's for. (and obviously how to make it actually work...)

...as anyone who's attempted to incorporate pigments, especially at the density shown in the microscopic photos will attest, the results will resemble Cremonese mud rather than fine fiddle varnish.

What I'm suggesting is a different way of making a lake pigment using minerals. Still in the discovery stage at the moment.

Sounds great to me. Of course I agree that just throwing ingredients together makes no sense. I just think that the problem is defined very differently when one is trying to recreate an effective pigment for a colored varnish rather than something with very little color for a ground.
.

[Johnmasters]

Not true. CaCO3 shows the Ca peaks, CaMg(CO3)2 shows Ca and Mg, etc.

I meant the carbonate part of carbonates, ("carbonate"). There are silicates of Ca and Mg also, so it is hard to know what may tie up the metals.

John--there's always nonsense, but a few nuggets manage to find their way in the mix now and then, indeed I think you have posted some relevant pigment-making insights on occasion.

I did, and I have to resist the temptation not to repeat myself. Something very interesting (perhaps very useful) was always overlooked in the minerals discussion. (Hint: re-read Michelman)

[Oded Kishony]

John M.

My daughter, who has three boys, says that you have to repeat something 70,000 times before a child will hear it. I suspect the same is true on Maestronet. Just human nature, not personal.

Oded

[Johnmasters]

John M.

My daughter, who has three boys, says that you have to repeat something 70,000 times before a child will hear it. I suspect the same is true on Maestronet. Just human nature, not personal.

Oded

I know. You have to get their attention first. Then maybe only a couple dozen times. I am not trying to give things away unless there is true interest. I think you know what I am saying.

[La Folia]

I meant the carbonate part of carbonates, ("carbonate"). There are silicates of Ca and Mg also, so it is hard to know what may tie up the metals.

Yes, but silicates have Si, which is easily detected. If you see just Ca in a spectrum of a mineral grain, it's calcite or aragonite, or possibly fluorite. You knew that, of course.

[Johnmasters]

Yes, but silicates have Si, which is easily detected. If you see just Ca in a spectrum of a mineral grain, it's calcite or aragonite, or possibly fluorite. You knew that, of course.

Woodhouse and Barlow found silicon, or else my memory is totally shot.

[joerobson]

Yes, but silicates have Si, which is easily detected. If you see just Ca in a spectrum of a mineral grain, it's calcite or aragonite, or possibly fluorite. You knew that, of course.

Just to stir the waters while I am gone........
My questioning of the "mineral ground" as an intentional technique did not come from any of the scientific or historical research. As a professional wood finisher for the last 38 years.......has it been THAT long?......I just do not see it:
1. The old surfaces do not appear filled.
2. The introduction of these materials blocks the very thing that distinguishes the old ground, which is a deep internal reflectivity. Chatoyance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatoyancy
Gone fishin',
Joe

[Michael_Molnar]

Oded, I have to read something 70,000 times before I understand it.

Fisherman: I humbly agree 100% even though I have only about 1% of your experience.The idea of a concrete-like aggregate is appealing to those looking for a way to stiffen wood. However, the aggregate just gets in the way (weigh - pun), figuratively and literally.

I once tested epoxy and found that it nuked the tone even though the plate was stiff as steel. The plate also weighed like a piece of steel.

Stay Tune.
Mike

[Johnmasters]

Just to stir the waters while I am gone........
My questioning of the "mineral ground" as an intentional technique did not come from any of the scientific or historical research. As a professional wood finisher for the last 38 years.......has it been THAT long?......I just do not see it:
1. The old surfaces do not appear filled.
2. The introduction of these materials blocks the very thing that distinguishes the old ground, which is a deep internal reflectivity. Chatoyance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatoyancy
Gone fishin',
Joe

Hurray...... Finally two statements that I can say are precisely wrong given a specific use of minerals. And I have sent samples to two forum memebers I ask to comment. (Please comment as to effects, not the constitution of what I sent you.)

I have a mineral sealer-filler that makes more chatoyance than anything I EVER tried.

The sealing is superficial*, and pores are still seen after the total film of varnish. However, they are truly sealed against deep penetration of varnish.

*Superficial in depth, but not in effectiveness.

I will try to get lighting and camera setup to photograph an example.

Your problem is that you did not think beyond the standard mineral approaches (which I have criticised many times in an indirect manner.)

You still do not account for what Woodhouse and Barlow found. As researchers, don't forget that these people are at Cambridge, UK. It is the English Harvard. I would trust them before I would trust a CHEMIST working as an art conservator. (He also looks very young, but I won't hold that against him except to say that maybe he has not had time to think of everything. And neither have you.)

Enjoy your fishin'. But don't dismiss this issue. People regard you as some sort of expert. To the extent you have done some things, I suppose you are. But you overlook things.

[Johnmasters]

This thread is starting to die just as a point needs to be made.

The term "mineral ground" is a misnomer. Minerals imply a special crystal structure, and nobody has ever claimed to find such a structure. W&B found elemental metals. They may have said "minerals" but it would be better to say inorganic metalic compounds.

They be amorphous, I don't know. The other thing is that minerals immediately sent people to the subject of grinding up actual minerals. ( "minerals" was a misleading term.) Then the subject went to nano-particles and iron oxide pigments.

You can all abandon this topic if you wish, but I just think that it would be a mistake. Most of you have made up your minds and won't read this or respond to it.

If there were any Cremona secrets lost, how did that happen? uhh.... I forgot...........

[Wolfjk]

Edit

[NewNewbie]

Something very interesting (perhaps very useful) was always overlooked in the minerals discussion. (Hint: re-read Michelman)

Can you be a little more specific?

Thanks

[Johnmasters]

Can you be a little more specific?

Thanks

As I said above, people jumped to the conclusion that there were "minerals" which implies a crystal structure, often a very specific one of a given compound.

They need not by crystaline, and perhaps there is no reason to grind them up from solids. Make them the way Michelman made rosinates.

[Melving]

[quote name='Johnmasters' date='Jul 14 2010, 07:37 PM' post='473222']
Hurray...... Finally two statements that I can say are precisely wrong given a specific use of minerals. And I have sent samples to two forum memebers I ask to comment. (Please comment as to effects, not the constitution of what I sent you.)

I have a mineral sealer-filler that makes more chatoyance than anything I EVER tried.............

. As researchers, don't forget that these people are at Cambridge, UK. It is the English Harvard. I would trust them before I would trust a CHEMIST working as an art conservator. (He also looks very young, but I won't hold that against him except to say that maybe he has not had time to think of everything. And neither have you.)..............

.................................................

John
You have an unrealistic and idealised image of Cambridge University.

[Johnmasters]

Hurray...... Finally two statements that I can say are precisely wrong given a specific use of minerals. And I have sent samples to two forum memebers I ask to comment. (Please comment as to effects, not the constitution of what I sent you.)

I have a mineral sealer-filler that makes more chatoyance than anything I EVER tried.............

. As researchers, don't forget that these people are at Cambridge, UK. It is the English Harvard. I would trust them before I would trust a CHEMIST working as an art conservator. (He also looks very young, but I won't hold that against him except to say that maybe he has not had time to think of everything. And neither have you.)..............

.................................................

John
You have an unrealistic and idealised image of Cambridge University.

Perhaps, but on average I would expect their faculty to be pretty decent.

You took the time to read my comments .. anything else to say ?? The main point was not that I am supporting Woodhouse and Barlow, it is that I say Joe is wrong in his two statements.. Do you simply say he is not wrong? Or what?

I tried to photograph my newly finished Chinese viola, but it is hard to illustrate the point. The best I can do is show this. Before the filler-sealer, no medullary rays could be seen. What you see as white bright strips look dark against the background when viewed from straight on. The contrast is extreme.

[iburkard]

They rays were not visible at all prior?!

[Johnmasters]

They rays were not visible at all prior?!

Yes, it is mellow, thanks.. Actually, the back wood had a very faint flame, much less than the ribs which you can see. I wet the wood with both water and saw a very faint hint of medullary rays, but hard to see much. Now the back still has modest flame as flame goes, but moving it the light makes it much more active.

Here is an open invitation: Anyone can send me two maple samples.. one with their best effort and one raw. (Write your name on them both). I will send them back with what I am using.

john masters
230 fallis rd.
columbus, oh
43214

[Janito]

I tried to photograph my newly finished Chinese viola, but it is hard to illustrate the point. The best I can do is show this. Before the filler-sealer, no medullary rays could be seen. What you see as white bright strips look dark against the background when viewed from straight on. The contrast is extreme.

John

Looks great.

Take 2 camping chairs + a collapsible table to VSA meeting. Clamp a little flag to table saying "Masters' Super Sealer - no magic necessary". I guarantee a big crowd.

ps - more feedback soon.

[Oded Kishony]

I've had a very similar experience to John's, where applying a mineral with sealer to the surface increased the depth and reflectivity of the surface. In that instance I used pumice and mica.

Your example looks good John. Though photos never do it justice.

Oded