Joe Wiese

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joe Wiese

  1. Well, Sorry to disappoint. I'm not going to post photos. I was at a meeting today about the Cannone. It was gently and respectfully requested that the people attending do not post photos all around. Use them only for private use. I hate to get hopes up and then have to cop out but a lot of people went to a lot of trouble to bring that violin here and allow some people some up close views. I know Genoa is very protective of it. I respect that and the people very much. I feel it would be in very bad taste if I did so. Sorry everyone.
  2. Yes, I'll post some. All those years of lurking here, I can give back a bit. Give me a day or two. I have to get out to work. Resize photos and figure out how to post but I'll get some up. The back was a bit weak in lighting and with reflections. Probably the worst view. Sides were pretty good. Lighting was not good enough to get inside that scroll and capture the gouge marks, but you could see some visually. Front was pretty good but near the upper F's lighting faded off a bit. Top arch you could get but the back arch was pretty obscure due to the support bar holding the instrument in place. I can tell already the color is not always the same in the photos as what I was seeing with the naked eye.
  3. I guess it depends Nick. I spent 3 hours staring at it today and taking probably 200 photos which ARE allowed. Lighting is pretty good. You can't use flash though. I make new instruments. At the moment I don't have too much interest in doing copies. For me living close the the exhibition, it was very interesting and worth it. I don't know how it will immediately help my building. Of course if I make a copy of the Cannone, I'll probably have more information than most people due to the the good quality photos. Lots of interesting things I saw that you can't get from a poster, or even from the few photos floating around the internet. If were in to doing a copy of of the Cannone, the visit would be indispensable.
  4. I'm from Columbus area. True, we got lucky with the Sisters City program and the Cannone. We used to joke about our city being a "cow town". Not any more. The city is growing fast in many different ways, all positive. There are reasons why we made the top 20 for the Amazon HQ2. Also our local violin shop The Loft is second to none with people that have been committed to instruments since the 1970's.
  5. I would be interested on any thoughts about bridge function from reliable sources. Also, is it truly correct to say a bridge filters? I have heard that so many times but am skeptical when I see a word used so frequently. I guess if a thick bridge is filtering high frequencies as I so often heard... Would it be logical to infer that a thin bridge filters low frequencies? In fact, a thinner bridge should flex more. Promoting Longer wavelengths. Lower sounds. Mechanically it would seem that a thin bridge should promote a deeper sound. A thicker bridge would flex less, promoting smaller vibrations, promoting higher sounds. This makes me question the convenient term "filter". I'm full of questions and full of ignorance. School me.
  6. I am actually not clear. But would be very interested.
  7. I know very little about bridges and bridge carving. I love to know a bit more about this. I just aim for 4.5mm at the feet up to right before the waist. I'm talking about the actual feet and the horizontal bar type section that extends out to the knees. What happens if we make the bridge feet thinner? What is happening? Less foot surface area- but how is that going to affect sound. More flex - but in which directions and how does that affect sound? Is .1-.2 mm really making a difference in this area? How so? What is this area doing in terms of mechanics of motion and sound transference to the body? Someone write a book on bridge carving please.
  8. Well, I don't know.... Ha ha! I'm sorry for what I am about to write, it is long but I'll try to be clear and if I make a mistake chemically please be gentle. I'm trying hard to be clear and correct to the best of my knowledge but this is a lot to keep straight with no mistakes. I think I have really good idea at the end of this! Vinegar is not a pure substance. Besides water is acetic acid is CH3COOH. There is other "stuff" in the vinegar which could be reacting with who knows what. There are different types of vinegar. Vinegar also ages which changes it chemically. (aged basalmic 30 years yum) But I can give some more insights. Vinegar is a weak acid which brings up something I should have explained long ago and forgot. A weak acid by definition does not dissociate completely in water. Meaning if we put CH3COOH in water only some of it will turn into CH3COO- and H+. Only a few of those H+ will be available to go around disrupting other molecules. A strong acid like HNO3 Nitric acid, will completely dissociate forming a lot of H+ which can do a lot of damage. That is the reason why people are so weary of Nitric acid and they should be. NaNO3 may produce HNO3 Nitric acid. It is why I don't use NaNO3 Sodium Nitrate. I use NaNO2 Sodium Nitrite. You will see Also, before I move on we should know that HNO2 Nitrous acid is considered a weak acid meaning not as many H+ will be floating around. A lot of the HNO2 is going to stay as HNO2, not doing as much. NaNO2 may produce HNO2 Nitrous acid. How strong is strong? How weak is weak. There are ways to measure this. Look below if you want. The numbers at the right refer to the rate that the H+ with dissociate from the -ion. It is not that important for discussion though. Pause and keep this in mind. I can take a really strong acid like hydrochloric which everyone has heard of. I can put a drop in a swimming pool and swim to my hearts content. That is why concentration matters. Concentration is NOT the same thing as Strong or Weak. I believe the concentrations we use are way too small to affect the wood significantly. To try to take this around to the main topic again, we have to remember we are not talking about putting Nitric acid HNO3, or Nitrous acid HNO2, on the wood. We are talking about putting NaNO3 and NaNO2 on the wood. The chain of event that will have to happen are this. I'll use NaNO2 as an example 1. NaNO2 will have to react to water to make HNO2 Nitrous acid. A weak acid. 2. HNO2 will have to dissociate H+ NO2- . It is weak so not a lot, (relative term) of H+ will react with the wood. 3. We also have to keep in mind that we could put a large concentration of NaNO2 which then has to go through those possibilities to react with the wood which will increase the chance of H+ reacting. Or we cold put a very weak solution of NaNO2 (in my case 1gr NaNO2 with 100gr of water) and go through those possibilities. This will produce a lesser chance of H+ reacting with the wood. Concentration matters. That solution is going to dry soon remember and once the water is gone things are going to slow down in general. Almost done. The vinegar and Nitrite question. I don't know. I have some thoughts but the bottom line is I don't know mostly because we have multiple compounds that could be reacting with each other or reacting with secondary compounds. For instance , an Nitrous NO2 acid produced could be reacting with sugar in the Vinegar and not the wood at all. A sealer was also mentioned. That complicates things a lot also. If I find anything out, I'll get back. Acetic acids is a very very weak acid by the way. Last thing, maybe important. There is a strong community aversion to Nitrate NO3 NaNO3 or KNO3. These could produce Nitric acid in solution. How much? Unknown to me. I don't know the conversion rates but generally the are once again tied to concentration levels. Nitric acid HNO3 is pretty strong. David Burgess asked about left over oxidation stuff in wood previously. I did not know the answer. Here is a theory. Ages past no one knew about concentrations. Also any biological form these substances will have both Nitrates and Nitrites in them in some percentage. You can only get it pure from chemical supply for the most part. In ages past, they were using both at the same time. There probably was other substances mixed in. My point is unknown concentration. Unknown purity. Perhaps...... In the past a person used a high concentration of Nitrates NO3 in wood. The solution dried pretty quickly. The Nitrates NO3 did not have a lot time to convert to HNO3 in the water before it dried. As a result not a lot of H+ was produced and the wood browned nicely with no damage. They have a nice violin. Out the door. Forgotten. BUT...... there was a lot of NO3 Nitrates left over in the wood. As decades worn on, slowly humidity provided a little water every day to the nitrates NO3. Slowly those Nitrates NO3 converted to HNO3 Nitric acid which dissociated into H+ NO3- and slowly ate the wood away. Even the Nitrites NO2 would have an effect but slower. It is a good idea. It could be totally wrong though. I have no proof. And would explain why people much smarter and experienced than I, are telling us to stay away from Nitrates and Nitrites. I love and respect you people. If someone proves this and writes a paper for the VSA, please give me some credit! Last, I still don't believe the concentrations we are using are doing damage. Please prove me wrong. I will get a chance to learn something new. That is all the matters to me. I don't care right or wrong. I have to take a break.
  9. To be honest, It gets complex. And there is only so far I can go before I'll get out of my depth real quickly. Ph is usually related to acids and bases. An oxidizer causes something else to lose electrons. They are two different things but can be related. Oxidation is a very general concept so there are many types of oxidizers and they are all relative. We may put an oxidizer on wood an it has no effect. Unlikely but possible. It depends who is reacting with who. In college there are whole classes all semester long that just focus on one of these. I have not taken one of those. Acids can act as oxidizers and frequently do. So in the case of Acids, Ph could be an indicator. But, there are three definitions of what is an acid. We are most used to a hydrogen donor H+. Also there are other things that oxidize that are not acids and are not oxygen. Chlorine is more than willing to rip an electron off of something else. That is why it is so reactive. It kills people, germs, bleaches flour. So what is an oxidizer? It depends. What is an acid? It depends. To get to the point, it would be more accurate to identify the exact substance which we are talking about and look up it properties rather than use general term such as acids or oxidizers. That way we know the specific chemical reaction we need to address. The other problem is, wood is a mix of many different substances and we are not sure who the acid, or the oxidizer is reacting with. Maybe a strong oxidizer prefers resin traces and no celluose or hemicelluose is affected. Who knows? A good easy way to look at it is most oxidative reactions are going to depend on the mass of the two reactants. In violins, one of my opinions was that the amount of oxidizing or acid agent that could be present is so small compared to the mass of the wood we are applying on, it does not make sense it would do much damage. In general terms, If we use 1 gram acid and 2500 grams wood, it makes sense there is going to be very little damage to the wood. That reaction may complete in 1 second or 100 years but the ratio is the same. There is only so much damage that small amount of acid can do. Also, not all acids are the same. Some are more reactive even though they are the same concentration (molarity). For instance you can spray me with 13 molar citric acid or 13 molar hydrochloric acid. I'll take the citric acid any day. Very different results. Some react particularly with certain substances. Sorry, no easy answers. Then more to consider.... What happens two coatings? Three? What percentage of Acid or oxidizer or NaNO3 is needed per gram before there is oxidizer left over? I have no idea. In figuring out what is going to happen........ what specific chemical we talk about is really important. What concentration is really important What ratio of reactants is really important Thanks.
  10. I agree, truly. Good general advice. I believe there are exceptions if used properly and if we are defining our substances correctly. After all we oxidize wood in the air all the time. Baking with Oxygen accelerates that process at least on the surface. Oxidizing is when one substance loses an electron. Oxygen is very good at getting substances to do this, but there are hundreds if not thousands of other oxidizers out there that have nothing to do with oxygen. It depends. Your statement might be alluding to a probable myth that I have seen on Maestronet many times. That is that once these compounds (whatever they are) are applied to wood they continue to work and will continue to do damage forever. In general, an oxidizer is used up in the chemical reaction and is converted to another substance. If a person needs to "neutralize" an oxidizer they used too much in the first place. The process ends. An acid is neutralized into a salt. The process ends. In general, I know of nothing which can do a continuous chemical reaction over an over again without destroying itself. Except for an enzyme which helps chemical reactions but are not directly part of them. Once again, if some one has some good science that refutes what I say, please let me know. I have no interest proving anyone right or wrong. I'm not a wood expert or a restoration expert. In fact I only build. And I'm sure what David has seen in his experience is true. I don't doubt that at all. I'm just not sure if we are putting it in accurate wording or context based on the laws of chemistry. The real problem is we, including myself, are usually incomplete and inaccurate in conveying our ideas, especially in this writing format. We use precise science terminology in inaccurate context and ways. Throw in a couple hot heads and someone who thinks they know what they are talking about and who knows what is real? There is no getting around it. That is why scientific papers are so incredibly long and difficult to read. That is also why there may be years in lag time between a discovery and publishing. The precision is so important for clear communication. Thank you David for all your posts over the years. Not only have I enjoyed your wisdom but I have always respected your temperament.
  11. True in theory. Not arguing. Only seeking facts in our discussion. Your posts have helped me through the years as I mostly lurk. Thank you. 1.The molarity that we are using, the Nitrates or Nitrites are producing an incredibly tiny amount of acid. 2. Also, not all the NO3 and NO2 will form an acid as the aqueous solution is in equilibrium. (this could be driven to one end of the equation though, drying time will probably mater) 3. Compare the mass of the NaNO3 or NaO2 to the mass of the wood you are applying it to. I use a 1% NaN02/100ml of water. The weight of that is 101grams. I apply maybe, 10 grams at best to my violin. The back will weigh about 100gr. Ribs 35gr (blocks don't count) Belly 70grams. Neck I'm not sure, say 50 grams. So approximately 250gr of wood to 10grams of this 1% solution. That means I applied .1gr of NaN02 to 250 grams of wood. That is a 1/2500 ratio. There is no way that small amount of potential acid could damage that much wood. I am not sure at all what this reaction is doing to the "wood". Oxidizing using acids? Maybe. It could also be oxidizing using a free Oxygen from a secondary reaction. The NO3-/NO2- could also be reacting. Also, what is reacting with what? Minerals in the wood? Hemicellulose? Cellulose? Glucose? Other sugars? Resins? Perhaps the wood itself has basic compounds which neutralize the potential H+ before it can even affect any structural components of the wood. The list is endless. We don't know what this reaction does only that it changes the color of the wood. I don't think it is only the H+, if at all. I suspect Oxygen, but do not know. It is a guess. A sour gummy worm will have more acid concentration. Lemon juice would do more damage. And, once that acids reacts it will be gone. Chemical reaction is done. We do far worse things to our wood. Also, I had forgot to mention before. I have used 1%/100ml KNO2 with 1%/100ml bicarbonate. I used the bicarbonate to neutralize any potential nitric acid produced. My wood still changed color. That leads me to believe it is not at simple as H+ oxidizing things. Those should have been neutralized but yet I still had color change. Molarity was not the same so perhaps I still had H+. In any case, with the small chance of significant acid being produced I just stopped using the Bicarbonate. I'm open to the possibility this will damage wood but My background is in the Biological sciences including 3 semesters of inorganic chemistry. 2 semesters of Organic Chemistry. 1 semester of Biochem. Other chem classes through the years. I work with Chem most days to some extent. I really am weak at chemistry but have the fundamentals. Chemically I see little danger.
  12. Stump remover KNO3 and similar substances do two things. First it provides oxygen which aerobic microbes like a lot. That is why we turn a compost pile. It also provides Nitrogen which fungus feed off of and they accelerate the decomposition of the stump. Nitrogen is often the limiting nutrient for growth of many organisms.
  13. Hey, I'm open to any corrections! But, I do have a University Chem/Biology background. I'm just not seeing the pathway to destruction. If you get that fellow in here, please have him set me straight. I have no ego. I'd like to see some rational thinking that contradicts my thought process though. I have asked around to my chemistry friends they are backing up my rational. They did say that nitric acid could (not would) be produced but with the concentrations we would use on wood, it would be little effect and then be neutralized. Also, lets not forget in this discussion of that generally we are talking of small concentrations of NaNO3 or NaNO2 How small is small. I use 1gr/100ml of water.
  14. Saltpeter KNO3 Used in Gunpowder. No reason I know of that it can't be used in violin making. Both these compounds dissociate in water. That is NaNO3 will become Na+ and NO3- separately floating around in solution. Then the NO3- will be free react to what it wants. Once the solution drys on the wood, the NO3- if there is any left from reacting, will not be able to move around in the wood, or interact as easily. What is it reacting with? I don't know. NaNO3 is more soluble at room temperature than KNO3. That means there will be more NO3- roaming around oxidizing things. In theory the NO3- should be more reactive at the same concentrations (molarity not weight). Are the any other interactions the KNO3 is doing differently? I don't know. There are reasons why KNO3 is preferred in gunpowder over the inferior NaNO3. I think they have to do with thermodynamics and attracting moisture. So Mike is right. They are different. KNO3. KNO2. NaNO3 NaNO2 How different? It depends. They are also very similar in some ways. Both are salts. Both give up a reactive NO3-. Is the Na+ or K+ reacting with the wood or reacting with a secondary product? Who knows. Chemistry is complex. I only know some basics. Jackson, why do you like the nitrate more? I was advised the nitrate NO3 was too reactive and can harm the wood, which I am skeptical to some extent also. I use the nitrite NO2 to be on the safe side.
  15. With some chemistry background and food science background. Agreed with Don. Probably not too dangerous. Take common sense precautions. Use gloves. Wash hands. Etc. Lots of confusion on these two these days. Some of this I believe stems from the myths in the food world. We eat NO3 Nitrates all the time. Look at a package of hot dogs that says "uncured" or "no nitrates or nitrites added" Look in the ingredients for celery root. Celery and other vegetables are packed with naturally occurring nitrates. These nitrates NO3 are converted by heat to Nitrites NO2 that turn the meat pink (and prevent botulism). So the food producers add celery root to avoid adding Nitrates or Nitrites even though they are still there. So we are all eating Nitrates and Nitrites in our meat even though it says we aren't. This is probably not a bad thing. Our bacteria in our mouth and gut also converts Nitrates NO3 to Nitrites NO2. All this stems from a few very unclear studies that Nitrites NO2 at high heat (grilling) could cause nitrosamines that may cause cancer. This fear of Nitrites is all very questionable and has very little evidence. People usually little science background grasp on to what they want to believe and crate their own reality of fear. The evidence is just not there. But, worth researching more. Please don't eat your Sodium Nitrate or Nitrite even though you can buy it to cure meat (pink salt) Also keep in mind NaNO3 and KNO3 are similar but will behave differently. For instance KNO3 is used as an oxidzer in gunpowder. ( have made some) All these compounds are oxidizing things. The Oxygen are reactive and are willing to react with other substances. I believe NaNO3 is more reactive than NaNO2 because of that extra oxygen. I have heard that too but I am incredibly skeptical. Someone feel free to teach me a lesson. Don has more brains in his little pinky than I do in my whole body. I use 1gr Sodium Nitrite /100g h20. I have not calculated the molarity (that is a way a concentration is measured in chemistry) but I extremely confident the molarity is very very low. This means that even IF all the Nitrates or Nitrites were converted to an acid, that acid content would also be extremely low. We don't know if those Nitrates ARE converted to acids, they might not be. Also, to the best of my knowledge (acids get complex) when acids react with substances they get neutralized. The reaction ends for the most part. It is not like the acids just wander around constantly destroying other molecules. So Low molarity concentration of NO3 or NO2 Unsure of acid production If acid production occurs, acid content is very low also. If acid reacts minimal damage and reaction ends. I'm doubting the acid theory. I would think we do much worse things to our wood like baking it, heating it on bending irons, exposing it to UV etc.
  16. Could be wrong person but, In the Hilliard Ohio (Columbus) area there was a fellow by the name of Sichuan Peak who built primarily violas. I heard from a friend of his son, that he sent them to Chicago to be varnished where they were sold. I am not sure through what outlet. I have not heard anything locally about him, nor did I ever find a website. I believe he has moved but not sure where to. Could be the same person, or not.
  17. Ha HA! I make cellos! Starting on my second. Planning on at least 4 more. Make a cello and you will see why there is not many people who do it. Expense is crazy. No room for mistakes if you want to sell it to recoup your costs, much less profit. Tighter market because of higher price, so you either have be a really good marketer, or maker. So your learning curve is more far more expensive than in violins. Tools also. Price an end pin reamer..... The amount of work, If you are building by hand is increased greatly to say the least. Anyone who has made at least one, knows it is an entirely different ball game than violins.
  18. My wife is from Bangkok. I have traveled to Thailand many times before I got into building. I bought my first gouges from the woodworkers at a Teak furniture factory. Home made, cheap. I still use them. I would look for some ebony and pick it out first hand. I would bring a small sample with you so you can show people what you want, because of language barriers. But, I do not know where to go to get it in Bangkok. Bangkok is very hard to get around in due to traffic. Jat Du Jat (spelling is questionable, Jak du Jak) is a GIANT market in Bangkok where they sell anything you can imagine. It would be a good place to start. There are shippers there that can package what you buy and send it to U.S. We had that done with a good experience. The only other thing I can think of is finding some mastic. If you were traveling to Greece I would say load up on it. Mastic is expensive here. My wife bought me some at less than half the price when she went to Greece. I have no clue if it could be found in Bangkok. If you have Thailand questions feel free to write me at You will have a great time on this trip.
  19. So many unknowns. David Sora asked about that temperature for melting shellac. I double checked. I have found most scientific sources cite a 115-120F range. I also found some references, as I mentioned above, to it "softening" at 150F. I don't know the difference. It could be different sites are referencing different substances. Raw shellac (seed lac) may have a lower melting point. Dewaxed may have a different melting point than bleached or regular waxed shellac. This I don't know. Or it could be our definition of melting. Melting can begin before any visual perception of it is detected. What do we mean by melt? I believe the melting point of 115-120 is when the crystalline forms start to change to amorphous. ( I'm not sure how many crystals are in shellac, I have doubts because most amorphous substances solid or liquid are transparent, such as shellac) But, it may not mean that the substances changes shape in front of our eyes at that instance. This is why I believe I found the 150F reference for softening (and I was being imprecise with that number as to it's meaning when I first stated it.) I also believe that shellac wax (isolated) melts at a different temperature than the dewaxed portion (isolated), but I have not confirmed this. We probably need to use the words waxed shellac, dewaxed shellac, bleached shellac, or seed lac. All four are come from an original source but processed differently, and are actually difference substances to some extent. At least we will know we are talking about the same substance if, we say WHICH shellac Jullian was using. Here is a link which I believe is reliable as it is published from the Pharmaceutical industry. Go to page 18 of the pdf. Pretty straight forward explanation of the making process which varies depending As to when the hydrogen bonds break? 120? 150? 176? In my experience bonds don't break all at once, although there is probably a temperature ranges where most are broken. Don't know. But, hydrogen bonds tend to reform in some substances at least once the temperature cools down. This is why we can curl our hair with a curling iron or blow dryer. (it should be noted that hair is a protein, different substance) Shellac? Don't know. I tried to find some literature on the highest temperature that a "shellac type substance" can survive before undergoing some sort of permanent chemical reaction which we would know as "causing damage" I have not found it yet. But, once you start breaking other bonds than hydrogen bonds, bad things start to happen. What temperature does that happen with a shellac substance? Don't know. More loose ends. I'm not sure where David got the number of 176F he mentioned for processing. I also am not sure if the processing method makes shellac more stable as David mentioned, ( and what does "more stable" mean, we would have to define that before talking about it) For instance, more stable for Bulls Eye shellac may mean, more stable IN THE CAN. I may not reference anything to the stability once applied. I have also heard a well respected luthier who I admire tell me shellac polymerizes over time. That does not make sense to me and I have not been able to find reference to it in literature. But as to heat processing of shellac, I did find one reference which stated that if heated too much during the initial processing, that it can damage it, but it did not say how it was damaged. Sorry for all the definitions but in many threads I see the conversations breaking down due to lack of imprecise terminology. I am just as guilty many times. I guess if I could actually suggest one thing, it would be start over and talk about what shellac substance are we talking about here? Are we heating it in alcohol? Are we trying to melt it from a solid to liquid with no solvent? At least that way the group can talk about apples to apples. David, love your, input, thanks to all.
  20. Did some research. I have some biology/chemistry background It is biopolymer. Made of a few different acids. Has polar and non polar bonds. That is why it sticks to most things. Reacts with alkaline substances. It was my understanding that hydrogen bonds between the acid components, are the main reason why shellac hardens into a solid form. Heating past 150F breaks the hydrogen bonds resulting in ruined shellac. The details, I do not know or understand, so take that with a grain of salt. It would seem that heating to high temperatures may lead to the components breaking down completely or reacting with oxygen into who knows what? I doubt it would be usable as shellac if pushed to this point. Would it be usable as another substance or ingredient????? Try it and let me know.
  21. Starting my second cello. Strad Davidov Poster would be nice. I already have access through libraries and friends but having my own would be nice. Thanks. Joe Wiese, Ohio
  22. Michael Thompson's Guaneri Books are sold. Many thanks.
  23. I'm posting for Michael Thompson who had the scrolls gouges for sale. I actually helped him post those also. He is selling his Biddulph books. Good to Excellent condition. One tiny rip on a corner. Pages are unmarked. No tears or stains that I know of, and I have examined the books many times. Binding is good but with some stretching over time. The photos show it. We have informed a few people we know privately before we posted on maestronet. $1200 If you look previous Skinner auctions this price is fair, and even on the low end when you consider Skinner also charges a 23% buyers premium. I don't know if they charge tax. Below is a link to Flicker where a few photos are posted. They give a good description of the books as a whole. Email Michael: