🤝 HELP SUPPORT THE CHANNEL 🤝 Support with UA-cam channel membership: ua-cam.com/channels/VyE_6jEtVZGmYGXtUOL5FQ.htmljoin Support with Patreon: www.patreon.com/ragnbonebrown Support with PayPal paypal.me/ragnbonebrown Shop With Amazon using my affiliate link: geni.us/iWD3K 💰 SHOP 💰 Etsy: www.etsy.com/uk/shop/KeithBrownMaker teespring.com/stores/rag-n-bone-brown-merch 🎧 WORKSHOP BANTER PODCAST 🎧 ua-cam.com/users/workshopbanter Also available on Spotify, Apple, Google and most other podcast platforms 🔗 LINKS: 🔗 Website: www.ragnbonebrown.com Facebook: facebook.com/ragnbonebrown Instagram: @ragnbonebrown Twitter: twitter.com/ragnbonebrown Email: ragnbonebrown@gmail.com Second UA-cam Channel (non woodwork videos): ua-cam.com/users/keefykeef
I would have love to seen some different kinds of coatings. Maybe coating the piece in resin or wax would make a difference? Seeing a piece with concrete around the bottom to see if the exposed parts rotted easily. Hindsight of course, but still thoughts.
I've been wondering about heat treatment. Supposedly lumberyard wood at least here is somewhat heat-treated (kills everything currently in the wood, eggs, buggs, spores etc...) But at work we get a lot of pallets. Might be being in the UK you can't get untreated pallets because it was very important what everything going to the UK was on heat-treated pallets. Where as most other places got a mix. Still mostly heat-treated. But I had a nagging suspicion that was because the non heat-treated ones didn't hold up as well, meaning that over time most pallets left would be heat-treated. And I've been wondering what kind of heat treatment that is they do on the pallets, and if it would be worth replicating on normal woodstuffs. Apparently FAO:s standard ISPM15, requires the core temperature of the wood to be 56 degrees C for at least 30 minutes. And that's all. Apparently it is just to prevent the spread of some bugs, but at work whenever a pallet doesn't hold up it is usually an untreated one, which is strange considering they are in vast minority.
Swedish wood technician here. I work with VPT(Vacuum Pressure Treatment) chemicals and processes. When treating at home you will only get a surface coating. The industrial processes use vacuum and pressure to penetrate into the sapwood. Unfortunately for guys in UK, you dont have any third party inspections making sure that the timber actually is use class 3 (above ground) or use class 4 (in ground). In the nordics we have the NTR quality scheme. This makes sure that the timber both contains the correct amount of preservative per m3 (retention) and that all of the sapwood is penetrated (for pine). UK is a market where some of the treaters takes shortcuts and the timber would not pass an external audit. The battens you selected was most likely use class 3 and makes them unsuitable for ground contact even if the treater was doing everything by the book
Can confirm. Here in Finland, impregnated timber is marked per piece with yellow (AB class) and white (A class) flags under the same Nordic NTR quality criteria. Class A is suitable for constant ground/water contact similarly to your Class 4.
Is the US and Canada, they can use treated lumber to create basement foundations for homes. With proper drainage, it's supposed to last over 100 years. I'm assuming in North America, we must use a similar rating system.
You seem to be the guy to ask... I have some old 4x4s have been in ground/ 25 years. I repurposed them and am now using them as supports for a chicken run. I bought new ground treated 4x4s (rated for ground contact). I stained both of them, 3 coats, this is on top of their in-ground rating. How long could I expect the 25 year old posts to survive, do new methods last as long as old methods? The old 4x4s seemed fine, but grayed and feels a little lighter than usual (less dense?) How long will the new 4x4s last?
In Australia we use a similar rating. H(hazard) 1 to H6. H1 untreated, H2 outside occasional exposure to weather, H3 full exposure to weather, H4 in ground, H5 submersed fresh water, H6 submersed salt water. Nearly all pressure treated timber sold is H3. Most self treatment products are H2-H3 equivalents. Touch the ground with anything under H4 and it won't last because it hasn't been designed for that purpose
Just an observation by a 69 year old. I recently tore down an old shed on my property that was made out of pressure treated lumber that was bought , best guess in the 1980's. That lumber which had been exposed to moisture and elements for all these years was in amazingly great condition. So much so that I took the time to remove old nails and salvage it for reuse. The wood was so hard, removing some of the nails was impossible. I don't know how these boards were treated back then, but it is clear the treatment has lasted a lot more than modern lumber.
The EPA continues to make life more expensive and labor intensive for homeowners. Cabot used to make a nice oil based stain that lasted 7 years on my deck. It was replaced with garbage that had to be brushed, not rolled and lasted only a little over a year. It cost approximately the same as the old oil stain, was more difficult to apply and had to be redone every year or two. -Garbage. @@integr8er66
Reminds me of some years ago I was cleaning up some border of where I live and found a random piece of pressure treated wood under the leaves. No idea how long it had been there but it looked like it was easily a decade or more. Still solid and usable. My porch was made with apparently mixed pressure treated over a decade ago. The poles and the joists are still in great solid condition despite no painting or anything. However, the deck board and steps needed repairs a couple times since I've been here. The old stuff was probably toxic but it sure did last apparently.
Please do not re-use CCA treated wood for anything involving significant human (or Animal) contact such as Handrails, Kids play house, Patio, etc. The risk is greater with older wood, as the arsenic tends to seep out quicker without the original sealer/paint protecting the surface.
few years ago i dug out 20+ year old untreated piece of acacia lumber out of totally damp never seen light spot on a land, it had some rot around it but when i dug into it with chain saw inside was totally healthy.
Wow, Keith from the past! I greatly appreciate your time capsule. That's dedication to set up a 3-year experiment and actually save the footage to share with me on UA-cam. Gratis
I work at a pressure treating plant and in the comment of you saying the moisture content is high is an understatement after we pull the lumber out of the pressure pot. It’s normally about twice to three times. It’s standard size. It’s unbelievable how much water it could soak up for about an hour, the lumber is like of waterfall with the amount that pours out of it even up to three days. It is still coming out at a pretty good rate. We normally keep the lumber on a drying pad for a week before it gets shipped out.
that's still very debated today, as we all know charcoal is one of the best growing environments ever for bacteria to grow, which leads up to water creeping in due to several biological processes related to the bacteria. Modern wood burning for preservation makes emphasis on staining the entire burnt piece with Oil at least twice, and that is showing a lot of potential, something the japanese were not doing back then. Also ancient times dude? japanese started with that technique just shy of 300 years ago...
@@ezforsaken I'll do the experiment at some point with the burnt wood and modern preservatives. On a side note, I put wood preservative on an oak trellis and the wasps came and stripped the surface off the wood to build their house. They ain't stupid even if we humans are. Bet they read the 10 year warranty on the tin an thought about future generations of wasps.
Not an expert by any means but my theory is that; the self wood preserver doesn’t penetrate deep into the wood fibres. Thus creating a water resistant film on the surface. This film seems to actually be acting to keep the moisture in the wood ergo accelerating the decay process. A similar thing can often happen in bricks plastered or painted in synthetic materials like gypsum plaster or plastic paints. Sure they partially create a barrier, but once the water is in it’s locked there with little opportunity to evaporate and ultimately making the bricks break up into powder. On that note Kieth - you’d probably really like a guy called Peter Ward on UA-cam who diagnoses damp issues in old houses and helps resolve them! Great video bud! Keep it up!
If this is the preserver I am thinking of it has no sealing effect whatsoever. Traditional treatments are solvent based and normally have a wax/oil/resin component to waterproof the wood. This stuff is water based and doesn;t seal the surface at all, it is just an emulsion of chemicals. This has the advantage that you can overcoat it with water based stains and paints that are repelled by a lot of solvent based preservatives. On the other hand, it means that the preservative is instantly washed away when the wood gets wet. In fact, I think the instructions even say that for external use you have to top coat it for this exact reason.
South African Wood Technician here! Much respect for setting up this test 3 years in advance! You might find that after a longer period the results will be even more in favour of the pressure treated lumber. We in South Africa also use the H1-H6 system as I've seen the Aussies state in the comments, most commonly used with CCA and Creosote, although some other options like ACQ are also available. The different treatment levels indicate different amounts of the preservatives used and also very strict standards and rules for the penetration of the preservative as set out by the SABS (South African Bureau of Standards). I did tests for a pole manufacturing plant as a student drilling core samples out of poles and measuring the depth of penetration of the preservative (in this case it was poles used in agricultural industry and treat to H4 standard because it would be planted in the ground and thus be in permanent contact with the ground) to determine if the process being used was still effective. After the results of my tests we altered the treatment schedule and made sure the moisture content of the poles were correct before loading the vacuum chambers. This had a significant impact on the penetration and thus the longevity of the poles. Remember whenever pressure treated timber is cut, one needs to re-apply treatment to the exposed area so as to not leave a gateway for fungus, rot, and insects to get to your untreated core! For anyone interested, more information about the South African Standards can be found on the South African Wood Preservers Association (SAWPA) website.
It’s well known that if it’s under water it lasts longer. I’m from The Netherlands and in Amsterdam you have a lot of old houses next to the canals, often they are build on top of oak pillars and they often are in perfect shape even after 100+ years due to fact they are in the ground surrounded by water. The main culprit that kills them is if water levels drop and oxigen reaches the wood, oxigen is the killer.
There is/was a group selling timber from old logs that sank into Lake Superior. A diver would go down, attach cables and they'd be hauled out. Old growth and the water and muck could stain the wood in interesting ways. The prices were quite high, and would need to be to make diving in the frigid lake worth ones time.
@@jpkalishek4586People of old used to leave tree trunks in flowing fresh water for years before sawing. This would replace the wood sap with pure water and apparently that is an excellent preservative. That was obviously what happened to the Lake Superior timber. Haarlem in NL has many building piles made of alder wood. Alder is notorious for quickly rotting in the presence of moisture but when totally submerged, it also lasts hundreds of years. We can learn an awful lot from our ancestors.
You might not be a trained scientist, but you successfully employed the scientific method. You formed a hypothesis and tested it using a well-conducted experiment and you even tried to adjust for confounders. Even acknowledged the limitations of your experiment.
Exactly. The only thing I would still like to see is a larger sample size but otherwise he did a solid job of testing his hypothesis. If you're not disproving at least some of your assumptions you're probably doing it wrong.
@@randr10 You don't always need a big sample size to get a clear result, particularly if what you observe is (1) consistent with common practice, (2) a rejected hypothesis, or (3, as here) both. The trick is to avoid over-interpreting results, but here he knows the outcomes are either negative (obviously rotten wood) or needs-more-data (anything else). Clear failures would have been to, e.g., start a damp-frame construction project, or make building recommendations to viewers based on just these observations. But he steers well clear of that.
In some quarters (covid and climate), trained scientists have been manipulated by censorship or the withholding of funding into subordinating the science to political agendas. In many areas, some trained scientists fudge their data in pursuit of the fame and funding that goes with dramatic results (usually in the social sciences). But none of that here.
I think he should have spread out his stack of 4 samples. I believe the 2 samples in the center were kept wet for longer. and (i think) is why the untreated sample VS the 'self applied protection' made the self applied protection look so bad. At first I thought the 2 wood samples on the outside of the stack would be affected more. but after seeing the self-protected sample I think the water kept longer on the 2 inner samples. not as much sun and air to dry the inner pieces.
I saw something on wooden ships.. When it came to the rate of degradation, parts of the hull that got submerged then emerged in a repeating pattern fared the worst. Parts of the hull that remained underwater at all times saw the least amount of degradation. You need water AND oxygen to rot wood quickly.
The old norse shipbuilders put wood that they planned to use submerged in mires with low oxygen water for year before using them. This aparently kept them "fresh" and planks easier to bend. So that seem to confirm that oxygen is needed in order for the rot to set in
@@sirseigan It's already known oxygen is needed which is why there are Roman boats buried all over Europe in good condition. They are beneath the aerobic soil layer which has preserved them for 1000 years or more. Venice is built on 500+ year old wood piers that still work for the same reason.
The Mary rose survived in the mud on the sea bed for over 400 years. They've had to work at preserving it for the last 40 years since they pulled it out of the water.
My fence posts have been in the ground over 25yrs and are still solid. I soaked them in old engine oil for a week, then popped two plastic bags over the ends and buried them in concrete. Having removed them recently I could not believe how preserved they were.
there is one other option you could try in the future using a blow torch to blacken the timber it works very well. Something the Japanese done and a lot on cladding
This was really helpful! Thanks! Maybe put - "3 years experiment" in the title? This is what sets it apart from most other videos about wood treatments.
UK Farmer here... only posts I use have been pressure treated with creosote or left soaking in it for > a year. You can buy creosote from ag' merchants in 40 gallon drums. Wood quality is important, far north tight-ringed pine is fine. Heart of oak, chestnut & acacia are good but pricey - NOTHING beats posts saturated with creosote. 👍
My grandfather informed me that sealing ( he referred to wax /oil coatings) all faces of the wood allows water to permeate in over time but allows very little to escape back out. Creating a warm and wet haven for microbes, fungi and bugs. He told me to leave the non weather exposed side of the wood bare or burnished with no preserver applied, "To let the wood breath and dry out"
Water logged woods creates a near anaerobic set up in the wood wich many wood eating fungi, bacteria and bugs can't tolerate which results in the them not eating the wood. Hence why ancient sunken sailing ships are kept in water in museums or doused in water 24/7.
I use creasote on all my outside timber, I also only use larch which lasts much longer and paint anything that’s in contact with the ground with bitumen
I love this! But I have to point out that putting them side by side so close together means that the ones in the middle have a very different experience from the ones on the outside. Harder to release moisture, for example.
Can I just call out the level of production on this video, I've been watching your content for years and the presentation to camera, cut pieces to tell the story along with the experimental narrative is top tier - Thoroughly engaging video, simple to follow and really professionally done. I've always been a little sceptical on self treating wood preserver. Built a log store (Picture in Profile) and used self treatment on some of the cut ends of the structure which have already shown signs of softness. I built the door out of floorboards but painted and soaked them in Smiths Penetrating Epoxy Sealer after a recommendation from a neighbour who owns a wooden boat and swears by it, the door is pretty much in the same condition 3 years later despite being open to the elements.
my first thought was: he didnt even sand the pieces... so he doesnt know how to correctly prepare the wood. so i think its the total opposite what you saying.
@@hito1988 🤣🤣🤣 it's a wood preserver it's not a wood finish. Why on Earth would I need to sand the wood? The preserver is going to soak in just the same regardless of whether it's been sanded
@@hito1988 Why would you sand the ends? The intention was to get preservative to soak deep into the fibres, not close the fibres off with clogged fine dust
A thought on the waterlogged wood... I think the pressure treatment is water soluble. Since they were all in the same bucket, I suspect the untreated wood became somewhat treated due to diffusion from the PT lumber
@gs425 This is unlikely. The treatment does not leach from the cell once treated. It is more likely the inhibition of the growth of organisms because of submersion. He also pointed out how fence posts rot at ground level more than below ground. Same thing happening. Plenty oxygen etc for organisms to grow in air but not so much in water.
Fascinating. I'd love you to contact Sika to see what they say about this, if they have a reason for the poor performance or can supply their own test results. I've been using that stuff for a while now and kind of wish I hadn't!
That's why you don't blindly follow youtubers that tell you to treat treated lumber. If a preservers traps moisture it will only make it worse, especially when it's not in ground contact, treated wood will last much longer when it's able to dry.
In the old days, the railroad beams where treated with heated waste motor oil (someone told me that they where cooked in it), and they are still around... thanks for the test...
I think you've proved that the sealer you are using is garbage. Any wood that touches the ground should have a preservative that has copper in it, you can get the same stuff they use for treated wood The treatment you used is probably not rated for ground contact. Big difference between a deck sealer and one used for burying in the ground.
Worked in a sawmill in the pressure treated dept. We had all sorts of test pieces from off cuts that we leave in the elements and watch them change thru time. From ziplock bags to painted pieces. The pieces that never had anything done to them always did better
I am surprised and a bit sadened by this data.. So all my money spent on pressure treated wood were mostly wasted.. I see.. Well, LUCKILY I did not use a preservative I guess.. Can anyone say anything about elements effecting the painted / unpainted / painted with oilbased products ones? I would love to hope that what Keith said about this allegedly not effecting them would be perhaps a little wrong but.. I don't know either. I mean, until a few minutes ago I would swear on pressure treated's name and definitely thought that, well, totally untreated wood is the worst idea anyway by far, at least use a preservative!
Read carefully. He uses off cuts of pressure treated wood. His experience shows pressure treated pieces do beter when nothing else is done to them (nor painted over, etc)
@@KostasTsakalidis He says it was pressure treated wood with nothing added that did best. I have just added two very thoroughly applied coats of Cuprinol External Wood Preserver to pressure treated fence panels - regretting it slightly now, but the shiny jet black 4' panel on 1' concrete gravel board does look great with plants highlighted rather than disappearing like they did with untreated or coated with clear or brown preserver
No, it actually isn't useful data at all. It's a test that was run once and should not be considered as anything other than a point of interest. Personally, I would continue to trust the actual materials scientists and building science experts.
@@alexparadi522, Certainly if you're going to be building something you want to at least pay someone qualified to check your work. But I don't think there's anything here to get mad about.
Neat test, TU. Have not read all the comments but the one thing (minor flaw) I saw in your execution was not separating the pieces of wood. In other words the two outer boards received more environment than those sandwiched in the middle where they were more "protected" by the outer boards. Just a thought....TU agn.
One aspect I could never figure out with the effectiveness of brushed-on water sealer stuff in the US, such as Thompson Water Seal, is that when brushing the fluid on a flat horizontal surface, the vertical sides of the boards, such as found on a platform deck, cannot be reached with a brush applicator. Same with the underside with the boards of the platform deck. So the Thompson Water Sealer, when brushed on, is only protecting one side of the wood, minimizing the protection on the other three sides of the wood.
I admire your commitment to testing pieces from 3 years ago. A few thoughts: -It would be helpful to know what you did to prep the wood before using a preservative, since mill scale, high moisture content, etc. all would inhibit a preservative's ability to penetrate fully. -I think the weight of test pieces before/after would also be interesting -Test longer pieces with and without preservatives on the same piece would remove growth ring ambiguity. -Formulating conclusions based off using 1 type of wood treatment hardly justifies condemning all of them. I absolutely enjoyed your video though. Thank you.
Fence posts,when installing put a glove on and rub the wet post Crete onto the wood up to about 6 inches above the ground,never rots.sanding the wood smooth helps a lot to . Great video 👍🏼
As a builder I have noticed the same problem with self-treated and even some painted wood items. The treatment keeps the wood from drying out once it gets wet - so it stays moist and provides a perfect environment for the funguses and microbes that feed on the wood - and it rots right out in a few years
The best way to preserve wood I have found is with an opaque stain. Not great on horizontal surfaces because it will just end up flaking off, but for any vertical surface or something buried like a fence post it really really extends the life.
I just used a semi solid stain and the wood absorbed it really well. But even if a solid stain flakes off the wood should have absorbed enough to get painted over and keep a lot of protection. But like the preserver here it won't do crap for ground contact.
Mom's house has still good pressure treated deck post in the ground from the 80s and the Creosote utility poles are from the 60s when the house was built. Also it's a wooded area surrounded by lakes so there's plenty of things going on that would promote decay.
As a non-professional person , i love working with wood and make my own stuff. i don't let wood touch the ground but i do have large amounts of wood exposed to UV and weather. I have treated wood with many things in the last 20 years and i have discovered many interesting things. where can i send you some pictures with some explaining? thank you for you time doing this, pretty much confirms my theories of: only stain it to look nice or find something that really works.
In the US farmers have been soaking fence posts in used motor oil. The fence posts will last close to 100 years before needing to be replaced. Another option is using fire to charr the posts before sticking them in the ground. Those posts will last about 50 years.
No, fence posts treated in used motor oil will not last 100 years. Even the finest oak railroad ties pressure treated with the best creosote do not last 100 years. Motor oil-soaked fence posts last a bit longer than bare wood, but it isn't all that dramatic. The motor oil reduces water absorption by the fence post which slows down fungal and bacterial growth.
I was told about this by a neighboring old farmer and set up a test seven years ago which I was going to check six months later 😅 I forgot about it🤦 for two years until I was chopping some firewood out of the area. I had 4 pieces of untreated pine 4*4. one left untouched, one sho-sugiban fireburned and one fireburned and treated with a mix of diesel fuel and waste oil from a truck oil change, and one treated with diesel fuel and waste oil. Stunned too discover the diesel fuel and waste oil treated block performed the best😂 the untreated pine was mulch. The fireburned only sample was not great either, but the fireburned/ fuel oil mix performed next best but not as good as the fuel oil only block. It works and I treated all the timber in my tiny house build with it. The diesel smell fades in a couple of days and I actually found applying it in mid winter in freezing dry weather about minus 6 Celcius gave a better result than the stuff I did in summer, so the following winter I pulled all the summer cladding and did it again and the results are astounding 👍 those old timers knew a thing or two 😂
@@bruceparks3124bullshit. I've got a piece of railroad tie from the central Otago rail line put down in the railbed in 1890 in my garden and it's still intact and perfect no rot no nothing. Some of those 130 year old creosote treated posts have been repurposed into farm fence posts at Galloway near Alexandra. In fact it was when I went to pick up my rail sleeper and got talking about what they'd treated it with I decided to give his suggestion of waste truck oil and diesel fuel a test.
Very interesting info on the technicalities of pressure treatment. We made raised beds using treated wood, where we grow veggies, so good to know we're not eating some sort of arsenic. We also never bothered with additional treatment on the sawn ends - they seem to be holding up very well (into maybe their fifth year now), but who knows what's hidden under the soil... My uncle was crazy for creosote. He had a bunch of huge pigeon lofts and everything got a coating of it. I think even his bicycle got a couple of coats. Surprising results on the tests!
I used to work in a timber yard and remember unloading the wood that had come back from being pressure treated and how wet it was. Definitely used gloves to handle it if only just for the blue tint to it but the weight of it was crazy!
The copper based treatment they now use on pressure treated lumber is not any safer for humans than the arsenic. Do not use pressure treated lumber for raised vegetable beds. Use cedar for vegetable beds. Also, there is a company here in the U.S. that makes a non-toxic wood stabilizer specifically for raised vegetable beds. They advertise that it will double the lifespan of cedar
Another test you might enjoy setting up is comparing planed (smooth planks) wood against rough cut wood, outside. It is totally surprising to see the smooth loose. I'm a contractor, builder and although have almost no clients willing to use rough, I have been using it on my own property.
Smooth boards get burnished in the planer that smoothed them, and need to be sanded for better absorption of any surface-applied treatment. I restored old apartment-building entryways for years, and I always used 80# sandpaper. -- And by the way, for above-ground applications of varnish where you want to see the wood grain, Sikkens Cetol Marine varnish worked best for me. It has some UV protection, and when it dries, it remains somewhat flexible. It doesn't crystalize and turn to dust in sunlight like allegedly UV-protected polyurethanes or spar varnish. It's an alkyd-based varnish. -- Sikkens made residential Cetol varnishes for windows, doors, and siding, and I used it on one job, but it had more pigment in it, and the result was not as attractive. And apparently, the residential line was spun off into another company, and last I checked, Cetol Marine varnish and the Cetol varnish made for houses were made by separate companies. I only use the marine version now. And if you buy it, get it in quarts, not gallons. Once you open it, it doesn't keep well. -- Recommended maintenance is to wash it with TSP and a scotchbrite pad and recoat every 2-3 years, but I have seen it go 6 years without problems. -- And though manufacturers of any varnish seem to withhold this information, oily woods like teak and mahogany need to be wiped with acetone or lacquer-thinner immediately before applying the varnish. The chemical reaction between the oils in the wood and the varnish leads to unattractive results. Learned that the hard way.
I've thought about this before - I think rough surfaces effectively have more surface area and are more effective at wicking away the moisture and will dry out far quicker than smooth surfaces where the grain is tight and doesn't allow for 'wicking'. It can also be said that when water is allowed to bead, again it takes far longer to dry out than the loose surface tension of a rough surfaces - I've noticed this in practice where mold takes hold and grows on wood surfaces where water is allowed to bead. I'm building a summer house at the moment - for the base timbers I'm going to treat them with engine oil/solvent based wood preserver blend then coat the ground contact areas with bitumen paint to prevent moisture from being drawn up from the ground via capillary action. Bit of a long comment reply but hopefully of interest to someone!
For the submerged, you'd need to submerge them separately in the future. The treatment from the pressure treated wood will get into the water and offer protection from organisms for all the wood. The reason pressure is used to get the chemicals in is because it would otherwise take a great deal of time for deep penetration. But since you soaked them for 3 years, you basically (I assume) distributed the treatment chemicals into the other wood pieces and to a deeper depth than you could with pressure. Very interesting results, and great result learning about the self-applied treatment. Very interesting that it's essentially degrading the wood.
If you try this experiment again, could you do a sample that is chard and oil treated? I would love to see how old wood treatment techniques hold up to modern treatment.
I always soak my fence post for a couple weeks in a bucket full of diesel deeper than the hole I'm going to put the posts in. I've never had an issue with post rot or termites
Good test.🙂 When it comes to wood in a bucket then you should not forget that the treated wood's antirot stuff leaks out into the water and help the untreated wood, the samples should have been kept in separate buckets.
I did a similar experiment with post end caps. the best survivor was treated with penetrating Dutch oil, allowed to cure, and then coated with oil based Spar varnish
I used a half coconut shell (hairless) as a post-end domed cap, tapped it on for a tight fit, & treated it with the same preservative as the post & fence. It will probably outlast the fence & post, & me too.
Viewer in the USA. Very informative video. many years ago when I visited the UK - we noted that the climate was cooler and seemed to be somewhat less harsh ... area of US I live is subtropical. Carpenters over here also noted the changeover when treated lumber went from the CCA to the newest stuff circa early 2000's. Curious with your results, I looked up the MSDS on your brand of "Ever Built" wood preserver - - the ingredients didn't look so hot to me. The product looked primarily water-based and had some fungicides in water solution with perhaps polymer base that would dry and act to hopefully seal out water. The poor results you got made me think it reflects this product's very low toxicity makeup. At least over here in the USA they still sell some wood treatments that have bad chemicals - but I think something along the lines of PVA (watered down Franklin 3) water sealer would probably be best beyond standard pressure treatment. I am wondering if the product that you used alter ed the pH chemistry of the wood leaving it somewhat susceptible overtime to rot? If anyone with more knowledge on this topic could chime in it would be very informative! 😊
cool... I think the ones in the bucket kinda ended up "sharing" the treatment chemicals by sitting in the same water, effectively treating them all by capilarity, hygroscopic movement an such...
Or, more likely, the water blocked oxygen from the wood. Is well known that very low and very high moisture content prevents decay of wood. The problem is everything in between.
The wood preserver you used requires a waterproofing overcoat otherwise it just washes out into the environment. I recently spent along time trying to get my head around the different options for wood treatment and this video has been useful in confirming what I had learnt. The simplest way of understanding is to think of treatments being split into two approaches: biocidal or water resisting. Many products are just one or the other. There aren't many that do a good job of both. Barretine Wood Preserver seems to be the only one I could find but even that specifies that it is not for in-ground usage. I think I've concluded the best option is probably to just go down the water proofing route and use a silicone based treatment such as Roxil Wood protection liquid/cream. This is also less polluting to the environment. No biocide is needed if the wood is kept dry.
@@Rissen_ It's a small sample so might just be chance, but if there is a difference then I can only speculate. Perhaps the treatment is dissolving some of the woods own natural protection, just a wild speculation
That is very interesting. Thanks for your work on this. My old man used to say before pressure treating they would coat any wood liberally in used oil before placing in the ground. Sounded like it worked.
I PAINT all my outdoor wood projects with *Titebond III Waterproof Wood Glue* before painting them with outdoor paint. It creates a hard waterproof surface that makes the wood last *MUCH* longer than with paint alone.
Very interesting! from a 50 year cabinetmaker/ house builder / commercial shop owner. Love that sort of innovation. About the same price as good paint. I used to build wood windows of sugar pine and soak them in a massive metal tub of wax and diesel and turpentine and linseed oil with a fire under it.
Is it possible that the samples in the water all benefitted from leaching chemicals from the pressure treated or other? Thus preserving them all? Simply a thought. Awesome video!
Used motor oil and diesel fuel, the thicker and blacker the oil the better. I used my lawnmower engine for the oil and cut it thin enough to soak into the wood with diesel. Works like a charm
Used this on any posts I've buried in the ground. I like to leave them soaked in the mixture for days if possible. Almost certainly prolongs the life of the wood
Think about adding to just one method I wonder if burning bf would prevent absorption si I'm consider burning afterward but still.wooried about cracks that can't be burning inside
i noticed that the pieces were placed close together, possibly providing the inner pieces less chance to dry out. the outer pieces/sides would generally be better off I'd assume. in our country, CCA treated wood is still widely available and is pretty standard when purchasing 'outdoor rated' timber. creosote is also available and is generally used for outside wooden sheds and is very low maintenance as it penetrates and does not peel as other coatings may do.
20 years. One of my old bosses husband was a joinery company owner and he told me one of there suppliers had pine timber that was treated 70 years ago and put in all sorts of places and its still as good as they day as they treated it. They just keep updating the product sheet good for 80 years now!
70 year old wood is likely to have tighter growth rings as newer timber tends to be quicker grown varieties. Perhaps that contributes to the effectiveness of that particular preserver? And it's likely to be a completely different chemical makeup to modern preservers.
About 25 years ago, I fenced an acre of my garden (in interior Alaska) to keep my dogs safe in the yard. Initially, I used unpeeled 8' x 6" spruce logs, sunk 3' in the ground with pea gravel to tighten the log in the hole. As the fence progressed, I peeled the bark off, and applied two coated of green copper wood preservative, which looked very nice with the tight, welded wire fencing. Years later, I was shocked to find that the early posts (with bark!) actually outlasted the ones I had fussed over with preservative.
I have a pressure treated lumber deck (uncovered, in Seattle rain) I built in 1992 that is still holding up great. Everything I've built in the last decade lasts about 3 years before serious issues start. Whatever they used back in the early 90's where I live was WAY better. At least in my small sample size.
Can you imagine that, a corporation selling crap that doesn't do what it says it does! A company could piss in a cup and call it a health food and we would have no real way of knowing
In their defence , I bet if you read the label it says: "Not rated for ground contact", a deck sealer shouldn't be used for wood that touches the ground. They make specific dealers for ground contact, and yes they are nasty and contain copper.
One thing I can't help but notice is that half the samples are at the end and exposed on three sides, while the other half are sandwiched in the middle of others. I think this accounts for why the 'PT with cut end' out performs the 'PT with uncut end' and probably also why the untreated out performs the self treatmented.
@@bobbygetsbanned6049of course cutting makes a difference. The pressure treatment doesn't reach all the way to the center of the wood, so when you cut it your expose the untreated center and make it easier for fungi and insects to reach the untreated part
I swore by creosote when I was younger, mostly because I liked the smell of it made a lot of garden furniture for my family and had found 4 big pre ban jugs of it in an allotment shed we cleared out the stuff I put creosote on is still going strong to this day (still smelling strong too) everything else has rotted away
@vrstoned7870 -- In the U.S. CCA was banned for the same reason, and when that happened, I looked into the research behind the ban, and what was tested was the chemical itself. The hypotheses regarding the actual transfer of the chemical from treated wood to humans were rather whimsical and not tested, as far as I could see, though it was generally accepted that one wouldn't want to stand downwind from a pile of burning CCA-treated lumber. My takeaway was that the workers at pressure-treating plants and those close to burning CCA lumber needed to be careful, as well as the carpenters working with those pieces with excess CCA residue and the finer particles in airborne sawdust. Nonetheless, loads of playground equipment made from CCA-treated wood were dismantled and replaced, without any clear reported evidence to any danger to children playing on that equipment.
@@windhelmguard5295 I do the same . Have done this for many years only because it makes sense in regards to bacteria and bugs especially. I have no data to back it up though. Just find it hard to throw this oil away. I am a fan of burning posts bottoms before burying also and for good measure use the engine oil.
@@johnr.johnston5808 another really helpful trick is to never have bare end grain facing up, that'll cause issues even on the most well preserved wood in the world.
What a great video. I've just built a huge decking frame and treated the cut ends with a preserver, i wonder if different preservers make any difference.
Well put. A scientist is a person individual using the scientific method to do their work. And this was absolutely done with the scientific method. Is he keeps posting these over several years, he might even get a degree from a university out of the blue ; am Honorary Degree for performed work or when he decided too bundle the whole archive of work and polish and edit and write a accompanying booklet with proper references etc and in a conversation with a uni group dealing with similar research he could do a defence/presentation of the that total body of work to a commission and get appointed a PhD. There's multiple routes to a PhD, not merely the standard route. To back to the main point; yes he is (being) a scientist and it is awesome.
When I built my compost storage bin from wood, I used green treated! Top coated with a mixture 1/3 each linseed oil, kerosene, and paint thinner. After treatment all remaining brushes, rags, and supplies were burned in the backyard fire pit purely for safety reasons (linseed oil can spontaneously combust).
Good test - if putting in fence posts I clad them in plastic to above the ground and put tops on each post as a lot of damage is caused by water seeping in from the top and travelling down the length of the post.
I was taught that the main purpose of treated wood is to prevent insects from eating it....NOT preventing the wood from moisture or sun. We would buy borate in powder form, dissolve it in water, and use a pump sprayer to soak untreated lumber. If you plan on putting lumber into dirt you're going to need a moisture barrier like bitumen (black tar). You may have noticed wooden telephone poles have that black tar around the base.
@@TheWebstaff This stuff doesn't seal the wood at all, for external use it needs to be top coated or the treatment is washed away first time it gets wet. Unfortunately, it looks like this was the wrong preserveer for this job, maybe reading all of the instructions before starting a 3-year long test would have been a good idea. I don't think there is necessarily anything that would make it rot faster than untreated, I think it might just be that it had zero effect and bad luck meant it was at the bottom.
You have to use a specific product for wood that makes contact with the ground. I bet a million dollars that if he read the label it would say as much. No one ever reads labels anymore....
Wow. Very interesting results. Thank you for doing this. I believe it reinforced a lot of what I already knew, but also moving forward, I will absolutely not let timber come in contact with the ground. And any woods exposed to the air, I will coat annually with appropriate sealers. Outside decks or fences, I use clear diesel and used motor oil. I have a wood bridge running across a creek on my property. I've replaced the deck boards with pressure treated wood. So far, they have lasted 7 years without sealant. They are looking rather warn, however. I can only imagine how much better they would look and how much longer they would have lasted had I sealed them. Thanks again for the video.
Wooden posts will generally always rot / break at ground level. Yonks ago, we use to mix 50/50 old engine oil & Creosote to try and delay things a bit. There is another idea, a heat shrink plastic wrap type of thing. Put over the post at just above and below ground level and use a heat gun to shrink to the contour of wood. With wood being organic it's going to rot at some stage ! Try using using solid plastic posts, as heavy as concrete, were being made from recycled HDPE or PET by a Dutch company.
They make what is called "End Cut Solution" that is the same stuff that is used to pressure treat wood. Painting all cut end grains and setting in concrete that remains proud of the hole will help them last longer.
Treat timber as follows; Step 1 char the outside with a torch until its carbonized. Step 2 soak wood timbers in combination of used motor oil and diesel fuel. for at least a month. This method has been used for over a hundred years to protect fence posts other timbers in contact with soil for up to forty years.
I worked in a CCA pressure treatment plant back in the 1970s. At the time, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) said you could expect 25 years out of CCA treated softwood before failure.
I posted an anecdote I was told about this that somewhere one of the suppliers has some softwood that must be nearly 90 years old that's been treated and it just keeps going.
They sell the same stuff that is used to treat wood, it is usually called End Cut Solution and is used to coat the end grain of pressure treated wood you've cut. It is what you are supposed to coat wood that is to be buried. I bet the product he used is for coating a deck and not rated for ground contact.
I have a mate who swears by soaking fence posts for 24 hours in used diesel engine oil before he drops them in the hole. That would be a good experiment.
I've done that experiment to 740 ft of 8ft tall privacy fence pickets nearly 9 years ago and I can tell you it absolutely preserves the wood. My neighbor had the same style fence, same materials put in a year before my fence. His was mold green and rotten and replaced in 2021. Mine is still in great shape with ZERO mold on the pickets, some mold on the posts near the ground. I used 3 coats of used motor oil. It leaves a golden brown color and is an excellent protectant.
Well done you've shown the relative protection offered in a consistent way over time. The lesson is pressure treat and avoid direct wood to ground contact. No surprise there. Thank you
Well presented and straight to the point (no faffing) thank you. I have just had new fencing installed with pressure treated wood with a life expectancy of around 20 years in south east England. Wood fence posts were sunk in a bagged specialist premix fast setting concrete which also is reported as being the best securing medium by test. Fixings were also of a protected variety. It seems my investment is as good as it gets.
I'm sorry, but you should have done a little bit more thinking about your experimental design. The boards on the end have more surface area exposed to soil than those in the middle. Why wouldn't you separate them each by a few inches of soil? Your experiment would be far more useful and valid if you had. As is, your results are highly biased towards the inner boards.
Definitely different conditions for the end and middle board's. This could have been avoided either by spacing the boards apart (as you suggest) or sandwiching all 4 with two other boards on the ends and not using those end boards in the results. Probably the best option would have been both set ups in parallel: with space and with end boards. It seems that the boards on the ends did better overall than the ones in the middle, so there seems to be a confounding variable about boards that touch.
Thanks for your Test I wonder how treated wood plus a coating would had performed. Would the coating made it rot away more quickly or may for this only time protect it.
Thanks for sharing the extended test. Here in the US, wood treatment includes versions copper naphthenate ("copper green"). Horrible stuff to deal with, but it seems to work OK. PT wood used to have arsenic in it, and was poisoning ground water. Better to just avoid using perishable vegetable matter in construction, if possible.
I was told by a neighbour that the reason you have decay on fenceposts is because of the oxygen near the top layer. It gets wet then dry, then wet, then dry. This is evident in your findings because the ones you had under water didn't decay and if it was the case that the bugs ate the timber it would rot all the way down into the ground which it often doesn't. The rot usually occurs within the top 4inches. He seemed to know what he was talking about. So what I did is cover that section with concrete leaving a bevel edge above ground. I have yet to go back and check to see the results. However great little experiment you have done and it is very helpful in deciding what the best idea is to trust our wood. Thanks for sharing ;)
I’ve noticed the same over the years, and with posts in piers in the water. The area that is continuously exposed to wet and dry and air is usually the most rotten! The end’s of the 4x4’s in the lake bottom were usually in like new!
🤝 HELP SUPPORT THE CHANNEL 🤝
Support with UA-cam channel membership: ua-cam.com/channels/VyE_6jEtVZGmYGXtUOL5FQ.htmljoin
Support with Patreon: www.patreon.com/ragnbonebrown
Support with PayPal paypal.me/ragnbonebrown
Shop With Amazon using my affiliate link: geni.us/iWD3K
💰 SHOP 💰
Etsy: www.etsy.com/uk/shop/KeithBrownMaker
teespring.com/stores/rag-n-bone-brown-merch
🎧 WORKSHOP BANTER PODCAST 🎧
ua-cam.com/users/workshopbanter
Also available on Spotify, Apple, Google and most other podcast platforms
🔗 LINKS: 🔗
Website: www.ragnbonebrown.com
Facebook: facebook.com/ragnbonebrown
Instagram: @ragnbonebrown
Twitter: twitter.com/ragnbonebrown
Email: ragnbonebrown@gmail.com
Second UA-cam Channel (non woodwork videos): ua-cam.com/users/keefykeef
I would have love to seen some different kinds of coatings. Maybe coating the piece in resin or wax would make a difference? Seeing a piece with concrete around the bottom to see if the exposed parts rotted easily.
Hindsight of course, but still thoughts.
Try next time.
Old engine oil.
Wood wel never rot again
I've been wondering about heat treatment. Supposedly lumberyard wood at least here is somewhat heat-treated (kills everything currently in the wood, eggs, buggs, spores etc...)
But at work we get a lot of pallets. Might be being in the UK you can't get untreated pallets because it was very important what everything going to the UK was on heat-treated pallets.
Where as most other places got a mix. Still mostly heat-treated. But I had a nagging suspicion that was because the non heat-treated ones didn't hold up as well, meaning that over time most pallets left would be heat-treated.
And I've been wondering what kind of heat treatment that is they do on the pallets, and if it would be worth replicating on normal woodstuffs.
Apparently FAO:s standard ISPM15, requires the core temperature of the wood to be 56 degrees C for at least 30 minutes. And that's all.
Apparently it is just to prevent the spread of some bugs, but at work whenever a pallet doesn't hold up it is usually an untreated one, which is strange considering they are in vast minority.
How about Bamboo ?
Swedish wood technician here. I work with VPT(Vacuum Pressure Treatment) chemicals and processes. When treating at home you will only get a surface coating. The industrial processes use vacuum and pressure to penetrate into the sapwood. Unfortunately for guys in UK, you dont have any third party inspections making sure that the timber actually is use class 3 (above ground) or use class 4 (in ground). In the nordics we have the NTR quality scheme. This makes sure that the timber both contains the correct amount of preservative per m3 (retention) and that all of the sapwood is penetrated (for pine). UK is a market where some of the treaters takes shortcuts and the timber would not pass an external audit. The battens you selected was most likely use class 3 and makes them unsuitable for ground contact even if the treater was doing everything by the book
This comment hold the key!
Can confirm. Here in Finland, impregnated timber is marked per piece with yellow (AB class) and white (A class) flags under the same Nordic NTR quality criteria. Class A is suitable for constant ground/water contact similarly to your Class 4.
Is the US and Canada, they can use treated lumber to create basement foundations for homes. With proper drainage, it's supposed to last over 100 years.
I'm assuming in North America, we must use a similar rating system.
You seem to be the guy to ask... I have some old 4x4s have been in ground/ 25 years. I repurposed them and am now using them as supports for a chicken run. I bought new ground treated 4x4s (rated for ground contact). I stained both of them, 3 coats, this is on top of their in-ground rating. How long could I expect the 25 year old posts to survive, do new methods last as long as old methods? The old 4x4s seemed fine, but grayed and feels a little lighter than usual (less dense?) How long will the new 4x4s last?
In Australia we use a similar rating. H(hazard) 1 to H6. H1 untreated, H2 outside occasional exposure to weather, H3 full exposure to weather, H4 in ground, H5 submersed fresh water, H6 submersed salt water. Nearly all pressure treated timber sold is H3. Most self treatment products are H2-H3 equivalents. Touch the ground with anything under H4 and it won't last because it hasn't been designed for that purpose
Just an observation by a 69 year old. I recently tore down an old shed on my property that was made out of pressure treated lumber that was bought , best guess in the 1980's. That lumber which had been exposed to moisture and elements for all these years was in amazingly great condition. So much so that I took the time to remove old nails and salvage it for reuse. The wood was so hard, removing some of the nails was impossible. I don't know how these boards were treated back then, but it is clear the treatment has lasted a lot more than modern lumber.
They used to use arsenic which worked very well, but the EPA has since made them stop
The EPA continues to make life more expensive and labor intensive for homeowners. Cabot used to make a nice oil based stain that lasted 7 years on my deck. It was replaced with garbage that had to be brushed, not rolled and lasted only a little over a year. It cost approximately the same as the old oil stain, was more difficult to apply and had to be redone every year or two. -Garbage. @@integr8er66
Reminds me of some years ago I was cleaning up some border of where I live and found a random piece of pressure treated wood under the leaves. No idea how long it had been there but it looked like it was easily a decade or more. Still solid and usable. My porch was made with apparently mixed pressure treated over a decade ago. The poles and the joists are still in great solid condition despite no painting or anything. However, the deck board and steps needed repairs a couple times since I've been here. The old stuff was probably toxic but it sure did last apparently.
Please do not re-use CCA treated wood for anything involving significant human (or Animal) contact such as Handrails, Kids play house, Patio, etc.
The risk is greater with older wood, as the arsenic tends to seep out quicker without the original sealer/paint protecting the surface.
few years ago i dug out 20+ year old untreated piece of acacia lumber out of totally damp never seen light spot on a land, it had some rot around it but when i dug into it with chain saw inside was totally healthy.
Wow, Keith from the past! I greatly appreciate your time capsule. That's dedication to set up a 3-year experiment and actually save the footage to share with me on UA-cam. Gratis
Most people can't remember what they ate for lunch let alone when and where they started an experiment years prior and when to complete it.
That's what I thought: The most interesting before and after comparison was the tester...
I work at a pressure treating plant and in the comment of you saying the moisture content is high is an understatement after we pull the lumber out of the pressure pot. It’s normally about twice to three times. It’s standard size. It’s unbelievable how much water it could soak up for about an hour, the lumber is like of waterfall with the amount that pours out of it even up to three days. It is still coming out at a pretty good rate. We normally keep the lumber on a drying pad for a week before it gets shipped out.
Interesting! Thank you
It's info like this that you simply wouldn't find outside the industry.
Very interesting. And helpful.
How does it get twice to three times it's size? If a 2x4 got expanded to a 4x8 or a 6x12 then it would disintegrate.
@@goatman3828 not literally 2 to 3 times . A 2 x 4 gross 3/8 to a 1/2 depending on how crappy the lumber is
@@corybodiker6243 OK. That sounds realistic. Thanks for the clarification.
He’s plotting videos 3 years ahead! Talk about dedication to your content 🤣
I am in it for the long haul! 👍
@@RagnBoneBrown And you haven't aged a bit!
@@6panel300 It sounds like he's treating himself with wood preservers 🤔
@@6panel300 just like the timber....no ageing
@@preppen78 takes a lot of showers and jumps in many lakes and streams! The water may make him heavier, though. ;P
In ancient times, they used to burn the ends of the wood that go in the ground to preserve them. That would make a great experiment and content.
Yakisugi
@@old_H Gesundheit.
that's still very debated today, as we all know charcoal is one of the best growing environments ever for bacteria to grow, which leads up to water creeping in due to several biological processes related to the bacteria.
Modern wood burning for preservation makes emphasis on staining the entire burnt piece with Oil at least twice, and that is showing a lot of potential, something the japanese were not doing back then.
Also ancient times dude? japanese started with that technique just shy of 300 years ago...
@@ezforsaken I'll do the experiment at some point with the burnt wood and modern preservatives. On a side note, I put wood preservative on an oak trellis and the wasps came and stripped the surface off the wood to build their house. They ain't stupid even if we humans are. Bet they read the 10 year warranty on the tin an thought about future generations of wasps.
@@ezforsaken All of recorded history is only 60 grandmas. When you think of it like that, 3 grandmas ago is still 5%; a not insignificant %.
Not an expert by any means but my theory is that; the self wood preserver doesn’t penetrate deep into the wood fibres. Thus creating a water resistant film on the surface. This film seems to actually be acting to keep the moisture in the wood ergo accelerating the decay process. A similar thing can often happen in bricks plastered or painted in synthetic materials like gypsum plaster or plastic paints. Sure they partially create a barrier, but once the water is in it’s locked there with little opportunity to evaporate and ultimately making the bricks break up into powder. On that note Kieth - you’d probably really like a guy called Peter Ward on UA-cam who diagnoses damp issues in old houses and helps resolve them! Great video bud! Keep it up!
That was my thought so +1
If this is the preserver I am thinking of it has no sealing effect whatsoever. Traditional treatments are solvent based and normally have a wax/oil/resin component to waterproof the wood. This stuff is water based and doesn;t seal the surface at all, it is just an emulsion of chemicals. This has the advantage that you can overcoat it with water based stains and paints that are repelled by a lot of solvent based preservatives. On the other hand, it means that the preservative is instantly washed away when the wood gets wet. In fact, I think the instructions even say that for external use you have to top coat it for this exact reason.
Exactly ...Probably
In my experience I would say the same.
@@commando552 that makes total sense, thanks for sharing. I’m not sure it explains why it was worse than untreated though 🤔
South African Wood Technician here! Much respect for setting up this test 3 years in advance! You might find that after a longer period the results will be even more in favour of the pressure treated lumber. We in South Africa also use the H1-H6 system as I've seen the Aussies state in the comments, most commonly used with CCA and Creosote, although some other options like ACQ are also available. The different treatment levels indicate different amounts of the preservatives used and also very strict standards and rules for the penetration of the preservative as set out by the SABS (South African Bureau of Standards). I did tests for a pole manufacturing plant as a student drilling core samples out of poles and measuring the depth of penetration of the preservative (in this case it was poles used in agricultural industry and treat to H4 standard because it would be planted in the ground and thus be in permanent contact with the ground) to determine if the process being used was still effective. After the results of my tests we altered the treatment schedule and made sure the moisture content of the poles were correct before loading the vacuum chambers. This had a significant impact on the penetration and thus the longevity of the poles. Remember whenever pressure treated timber is cut, one needs to re-apply treatment to the exposed area so as to not leave a gateway for fungus, rot, and insects to get to your untreated core! For anyone interested, more information about the South African Standards can be found on the South African Wood Preservers Association (SAWPA) website.
It’s well known that if it’s under water it lasts longer. I’m from The Netherlands and in Amsterdam you have a lot of old houses next to the canals, often they are build on top of oak pillars and they often are in perfect shape even after 100+ years due to fact they are in the ground surrounded by water. The main culprit that kills them is if water levels drop and oxigen reaches the wood, oxigen is the killer.
There is/was a group selling timber from old logs that sank into Lake Superior. A diver would go down, attach cables and they'd be hauled out. Old growth and the water and muck could stain the wood in interesting ways. The prices were quite high, and would need to be to make diving in the frigid lake worth ones time.
@@jpkalishek4586People of old used to leave tree trunks in flowing fresh water for years before sawing. This would replace the wood sap with pure water and apparently that is an excellent preservative. That was obviously what happened to the Lake Superior timber. Haarlem in NL has many building piles made of alder wood. Alder is notorious for quickly rotting in the presence of moisture but when totally submerged, it also lasts hundreds of years. We can learn an awful lot from our ancestors.
The sugars in the wood are also diluted, after water treatment, insects should lose interest in washed out dried wood.
Underwater wooden ship wrecks don't rot either.
Cold, anaerobic environment = slow decomposition. That's why animals or humans buried in ice stay so well preserved.
You might not be a trained scientist, but you successfully employed the scientific method. You formed a hypothesis and tested it using a well-conducted experiment and you even tried to adjust for confounders. Even acknowledged the limitations of your experiment.
This. I was trained as a scientist, and you're doing the important part right.
Exactly. The only thing I would still like to see is a larger sample size but otherwise he did a solid job of testing his hypothesis. If you're not disproving at least some of your assumptions you're probably doing it wrong.
@@randr10 You don't always need a big sample size to get a clear result, particularly if what you observe is (1) consistent with common practice, (2) a rejected hypothesis, or (3, as here) both.
The trick is to avoid over-interpreting results, but here he knows the outcomes are either negative (obviously rotten wood) or needs-more-data (anything else).
Clear failures would have been to, e.g., start a damp-frame construction project, or make building recommendations to viewers based on just these observations. But he steers well clear of that.
In some quarters (covid and climate), trained scientists have been manipulated by censorship or the withholding of funding into subordinating the science to political agendas. In many areas, some trained scientists fudge their data in pursuit of the fame and funding that goes with dramatic results (usually in the social sciences). But none of that here.
I think he should have spread out his stack of 4 samples. I believe the 2 samples in the center were kept wet for longer. and (i think) is why the untreated sample VS the 'self applied protection' made the self applied protection look so bad.
At first I thought the 2 wood samples on the outside of the stack would be affected more. but after seeing the self-protected sample I think the water kept longer on the 2 inner samples. not as much sun and air to dry the inner pieces.
be careful not to over treat wood, or it may become spoilt and ungrateful
😂😂😂😭😊
I saw something on wooden ships.. When it came to the rate of degradation, parts of the hull that got submerged then emerged in a repeating pattern fared the worst. Parts of the hull that remained underwater at all times saw the least amount of degradation. You need water AND oxygen to rot wood quickly.
The old norse shipbuilders put wood that they planned to use submerged in mires with low oxygen water for year before using them. This aparently kept them "fresh" and planks easier to bend.
So that seem to confirm that oxygen is needed in order for the rot to set in
@@sirseigan timbers used in shipbuilding were treated this way throughout timber ship construction.
@@sirseigan It's already known oxygen is needed which is why there are Roman boats buried all over Europe in good condition. They are beneath the aerobic soil layer which has preserved them for 1000 years or more. Venice is built on 500+ year old wood piers that still work for the same reason.
Sounds like a constant wet dry cycle that rots worst. That's how the exhausts on cars wear out. No so much the heat but the hot cold cycle
The Mary rose survived in the mud on the sea bed for over 400 years. They've had to work at preserving it for the last 40 years since they pulled it out of the water.
This is the kind of experiment that makes UA-cam really worthwhile - thanks!
My fence posts have been in the ground over 25yrs and are still solid. I soaked them in old engine oil for a week, then popped two plastic bags over the ends and buried them in concrete. Having removed them recently I could not believe how preserved they were.
Great technique my guy ❤
I've done the same, but did a ratio of 2 parts oil to 1 part diesel to thin it a little
so it would soak deeper.
@@henrybialik8333 I went will 3 parts motor oil & 1 part diesel fuel and my deck is 30 years old.
@@henrybialik8333 Thats the formula some of my old engine oil already has when I change it, 1950s engines are a different beast lol.
Old engine oil is the only way .
I use it on my fences as well
there is one other option you could try in the future using a blow torch to blacken the timber it works very well. Something the Japanese done and a lot on cladding
You know what else has large carbon content.
Used engine oil.. 😮
Yes they did that in old days burn the wood
I thought the same. I often use this as a preservative method.
I would have liked to see this as well.
Burn it then use your old engine oil boi.
Just the fact you waited 3 years for this experiment is impressive, you've got my subscription!
This was really helpful! Thanks! Maybe put - "3 years experiment" in the title? This is what sets it apart from most other videos about wood treatments.
UK Farmer here... only posts I use have been pressure treated with creosote or left soaking in it for > a year. You can buy creosote from ag' merchants in 40 gallon drums. Wood quality is important, far north tight-ringed pine is fine. Heart of oak, chestnut & acacia are good but pricey - NOTHING beats posts saturated with creosote. 👍
I'm sure you're right. Might be allowed to buy it, but unfortunately not allowed to use it... 😞
My grandfather informed me that sealing ( he referred to wax /oil coatings) all faces of the wood allows water to permeate in over time but allows very little to escape back out. Creating a warm and wet haven for microbes, fungi and bugs. He told me to leave the non weather exposed side of the wood bare or burnished with no preserver applied, "To let the wood breath and dry out"
Water logged woods creates a near anaerobic set up in the wood wich many wood eating fungi, bacteria and bugs can't tolerate which results in the them not eating the wood. Hence why ancient sunken sailing ships are kept in water in museums or doused in water 24/7.
wtf does "non weather side" mean?
It means it doesent get direct weather exposure@@Layarion
@@rozelle122 so that would be the bit that's in the dirt? because if there's air there's weather. unless under a roof maybe
Even in the Art of War, it states you must leave your opponent a way of escape...
I use creasote on all my outside timber, I also only use larch which lasts much longer and paint anything that’s in contact with the ground with bitumen
I love this! But I have to point out that putting them side by side so close together means that the ones in the middle have a very different experience from the ones on the outside. Harder to release moisture, for example.
I was going to comment the same thing
This was incredible. I could watch this stuff all day. These are the best questions an avid DIY project builder could ever get the answers to.
Can I just call out the level of production on this video, I've been watching your content for years and the presentation to camera, cut pieces to tell the story along with the experimental narrative is top tier - Thoroughly engaging video, simple to follow and really professionally done. I've always been a little sceptical on self treating wood preserver. Built a log store (Picture in Profile) and used self treatment on some of the cut ends of the structure which have already shown signs of softness. I built the door out of floorboards but painted and soaked them in Smiths Penetrating Epoxy Sealer after a recommendation from a neighbour who owns a wooden boat and swears by it, the door is pretty much in the same condition 3 years later despite being open to the elements.
Thank you very much!
your log store looks great
my first thought was:
he didnt even sand the pieces... so he doesnt know how to correctly prepare the wood.
so i think its the total opposite what you saying.
@@hito1988 🤣🤣🤣 it's a wood preserver it's not a wood finish. Why on Earth would I need to sand the wood? The preserver is going to soak in just the same regardless of whether it's been sanded
@@hito1988 Why would you sand the ends? The intention was to get preservative to soak deep into the fibres, not close the fibres off with clogged fine dust
In a damp forest in N. Texas, my "used motor oil" has worked over 25 years and still working
Excellent to see independent experiments with publicly-shared results. :D
A thought on the waterlogged wood... I think the pressure treatment is water soluble. Since they were all in the same bucket, I suspect the untreated wood became somewhat treated due to diffusion from the PT lumber
That's an amazing observation!
@gs425 This is unlikely. The treatment does not leach from the cell once treated. It is more likely the inhibition of the growth of organisms because of submersion. He also pointed out how fence posts rot at ground level more than below ground. Same thing happening. Plenty oxygen etc for organisms to grow in air but not so much in water.
Fascinating. I'd love you to contact Sika to see what they say about this, if they have a reason for the poor performance or can supply their own test results. I've been using that stuff for a while now and kind of wish I hadn't!
That's why you don't blindly follow youtubers that tell you to treat treated lumber. If a preservers traps moisture it will only make it worse, especially when it's not in ground contact, treated wood will last much longer when it's able to dry.
Sika looks professional on the tin
In the old days, the railroad beams where treated with heated waste motor oil (someone told me that they where cooked in it), and they are still around... thanks for the test...
Been told a mix of diesel and used oil is the best deck stain/preserver there is. Just brush it on until it won't soak any more up
I think you've proved that the sealer you are using is garbage. Any wood that touches the ground should have a preservative that has copper in it, you can get the same stuff they use for treated wood The treatment you used is probably not rated for ground contact. Big difference between a deck sealer and one used for burying in the ground.
Bro the time and patience you took to make this video is insane in itself...you deserve an award
Worked in a sawmill in the pressure treated dept. We had all sorts of test pieces from off cuts that we leave in the elements and watch them change thru time. From ziplock bags to painted pieces. The pieces that never had anything done to them always did better
I am surprised and a bit sadened by this data.. So all my money spent on pressure treated wood were mostly wasted.. I see.. Well, LUCKILY I did not use a preservative I guess..
Can anyone say anything about elements effecting the painted / unpainted / painted with oilbased products ones?
I would love to hope that what Keith said about this allegedly not effecting them would be perhaps a little wrong but.. I don't know either. I mean, until a few minutes ago I would swear on pressure treated's name and definitely thought that, well, totally untreated wood is the worst idea anyway by far, at least use a preservative!
Read carefully. He uses off cuts of pressure treated wood. His experience shows pressure treated pieces do beter when nothing else is done to them (nor painted over, etc)
@@KostasTsakalidis He says it was pressure treated wood with nothing added that did best. I have just added two very thoroughly applied coats of Cuprinol External Wood Preserver to pressure treated fence panels - regretting it slightly now, but the shiny jet black 4' panel on 1' concrete gravel board does look great with plants highlighted rather than disappearing like they did with untreated or coated with clear or brown preserver
what about Shou Sugi Ban aka torching technique?
@@canobenitezDo they still do this with cheap dast grown pine
This is an excellent test. Thankyou for the video.
I know you said it wasn't scientific but as a relative study amazing and very useful data
No, it actually isn't useful data at all. It's a test that was run once and should not be considered as anything other than a point of interest. Personally, I would continue to trust the actual materials scientists and building science experts.
@@alexparadi522, Certainly if you're going to be building something you want to at least pay someone qualified to check your work. But I don't think there's anything here to get mad about.
Neat test, TU. Have not read all the comments but the one thing (minor flaw) I saw in your execution was not separating the pieces of wood. In other words the two outer boards received more environment than those sandwiched in the middle where they were more "protected" by the outer boards. Just a thought....TU agn.
Do you think that putting the self treated wood in the middle every time might have made a difference in terms of drying out?
One aspect I could never figure out with the effectiveness of brushed-on water sealer stuff in the US, such as Thompson Water Seal, is that when brushing the fluid on a flat horizontal surface, the vertical sides of the boards, such as found on a platform deck, cannot be reached with a brush applicator. Same with the underside with the boards of the platform deck. So the Thompson Water Sealer, when brushed on, is only protecting one side of the wood, minimizing the protection on the other three sides of the wood.
Fantastic video Keith! This has answered so many questions for me. Maybe set another experiment with different treatments?
I admire your commitment to testing pieces from 3 years ago. A few thoughts:
-It would be helpful to know what you did to prep the wood before using a preservative, since mill scale, high moisture content, etc. all would inhibit a preservative's ability to penetrate fully.
-I think the weight of test pieces before/after would also be interesting
-Test longer pieces with and without preservatives on the same piece would remove growth ring ambiguity.
-Formulating conclusions based off using 1 type of wood treatment hardly justifies condemning all of them.
I absolutely enjoyed your video though. Thank you.
Wow, a really informative video on wood and wood treatments!
Great experiment, too!
Well done, Sir!
Fence posts,when installing put a glove on and rub the wet post Crete onto the wood up to about 6 inches above the ground,never rots.sanding the wood smooth helps a lot to .
Great video 👍🏼
Posts rot at ground level and about 8 inch below. Not above ground
@@MrNiceCobra yes I meant from bottom of post to about 6inches above ground,works very well👍🏼
As a builder I have noticed the same problem with self-treated and even some painted wood items. The treatment keeps the wood from drying out once it gets wet - so it stays moist and provides a perfect environment for the funguses and microbes that feed on the wood - and it rots right out in a few years
That makes sense.
The best way to preserve wood I have found is with an opaque stain. Not great on horizontal surfaces because it will just end up flaking off, but for any vertical surface or something buried like a fence post it really really extends the life.
I just used a semi solid stain and the wood absorbed it really well. But even if a solid stain flakes off the wood should have absorbed enough to get painted over and keep a lot of protection. But like the preserver here it won't do crap for ground contact.
Mom's house has still good pressure treated deck post in the ground from the 80s and the Creosote utility poles are from the 60s when the house was built. Also it's a wooded area surrounded by lakes so there's plenty of things going on that would promote decay.
As a non-professional person , i love working with wood and make my own stuff. i don't let wood touch the ground but i do have large amounts of wood exposed to UV and weather. I have treated wood with many things in the last 20 years and i have discovered many interesting things. where can i send you some pictures with some explaining? thank you for you time doing this, pretty much confirms my theories of: only stain it to look nice or find something that really works.
In the US farmers have been soaking fence posts in used motor oil. The fence posts will last close to 100 years before needing to be replaced. Another option is using fire to charr the posts before sticking them in the ground. Those posts will last about 50 years.
No, fence posts treated in used motor oil will not last 100 years. Even the finest oak railroad ties pressure treated with the best creosote do not last 100 years. Motor oil-soaked fence posts last a bit longer than bare wood, but it isn't all that dramatic. The motor oil reduces water absorption by the fence post which slows down fungal and bacterial growth.
100 years? Maybe in the desert. Anywhere with snow won't see more than 20-25 years at most
I was told about this by a neighboring old farmer and set up a test seven years ago which I was going to check six months later 😅 I forgot about it🤦 for two years until I was chopping some firewood out of the area. I had 4 pieces of untreated pine 4*4. one left untouched, one sho-sugiban fireburned and one fireburned and treated with a mix of diesel fuel and waste oil from a truck oil change, and one treated with diesel fuel and waste oil. Stunned too discover the diesel fuel and waste oil treated block performed the best😂 the untreated pine was mulch. The fireburned only sample was not great either, but the fireburned/ fuel oil mix performed next best but not as good as the fuel oil only block. It works and I treated all the timber in my tiny house build with it. The diesel smell fades in a couple of days and I actually found applying it in mid winter in freezing dry weather about minus 6 Celcius gave a better result than the stuff I did in summer, so the following winter I pulled all the summer cladding and did it again and the results are astounding 👍 those old timers knew a thing or two 😂
@@bruceparks3124bullshit. I've got a piece of railroad tie from the central Otago rail line put down in the railbed in 1890 in my garden and it's still intact and perfect no rot no nothing. Some of those 130 year old creosote treated posts have been repurposed into farm fence posts at Galloway near Alexandra. In fact it was when I went to pick up my rail sleeper and got talking about what they'd treated it with I decided to give his suggestion of waste truck oil and diesel fuel a test.
And in Sweden we use blood from snow we saved from last winter. The fences last 30 billion years, at least.
Lots of work in this video, big thanks from the community!
Very interesting info on the technicalities of pressure treatment. We made raised beds using treated wood, where we grow veggies, so good to know we're not eating some sort of arsenic. We also never bothered with additional treatment on the sawn ends - they seem to be holding up very well (into maybe their fifth year now), but who knows what's hidden under the soil...
My uncle was crazy for creosote. He had a bunch of huge pigeon lofts and everything got a coating of it. I think even his bicycle got a couple of coats.
Surprising results on the tests!
I used to work in a timber yard and remember unloading the wood that had come back from being pressure treated and how wet it was. Definitely used gloves to handle it if only just for the blue tint to it but the weight of it was crazy!
I remember creosote. It could make your hands feel like they were burning. Fortunately, only used it a couple of times way back about 1970
You should definitely use garden box grade cedar and leave the pressure treated wood for the garden fence posts.
The copper based treatment they now use on pressure treated lumber is not any safer for humans than the arsenic. Do not use pressure treated lumber for raised vegetable beds.
Use cedar for vegetable beds. Also, there is a company here in the U.S. that makes a non-toxic wood stabilizer specifically for raised vegetable beds. They advertise that it will double the lifespan of cedar
Another test you might enjoy setting up is comparing planed (smooth planks) wood against rough cut wood, outside. It is totally surprising to see the smooth loose. I'm a contractor, builder and although have almost no clients willing to use rough, I have been using it on my own property.
The only rough we have is cedar which is much more rot resistant than untreated pine.
Smooth boards get burnished in the planer that smoothed them, and need to be sanded for better absorption of any surface-applied treatment. I restored old apartment-building entryways for years, and I always used 80# sandpaper. -- And by the way, for above-ground applications of varnish where you want to see the wood grain, Sikkens Cetol Marine varnish worked best for me. It has some UV protection, and when it dries, it remains somewhat flexible. It doesn't crystalize and turn to dust in sunlight like allegedly UV-protected polyurethanes or spar varnish. It's an alkyd-based varnish.
-- Sikkens made residential Cetol varnishes for windows, doors, and siding, and I used it on one job, but it had more pigment in it, and the result was not as attractive. And apparently, the residential line was spun off into another company, and last I checked, Cetol Marine varnish and the Cetol varnish made for houses were made by separate companies. I only use the marine version now. And if you buy it, get it in quarts, not gallons. Once you open it, it doesn't keep well.
-- Recommended maintenance is to wash it with TSP and a scotchbrite pad and recoat every 2-3 years, but I have seen it go 6 years without problems.
-- And though manufacturers of any varnish seem to withhold this information, oily woods like teak and mahogany need to be wiped with acetone or lacquer-thinner immediately before applying the varnish. The chemical reaction between the oils in the wood and the varnish leads to unattractive results. Learned that the hard way.
I've thought about this before - I think rough surfaces effectively have more surface area and are more effective at wicking away the moisture and will dry out far quicker than smooth surfaces where the grain is tight and doesn't allow for 'wicking'. It can also be said that when water is allowed to bead, again it takes far longer to dry out than the loose surface tension of a rough surfaces - I've noticed this in practice where mold takes hold and grows on wood surfaces where water is allowed to bead. I'm building a summer house at the moment - for the base timbers I'm going to treat them with engine oil/solvent based wood preserver blend then coat the ground contact areas with bitumen paint to prevent moisture from being drawn up from the ground via capillary action. Bit of a long comment reply but hopefully of interest to someone!
@@joejohnsoon the overoverthinking never stops😄
For the submerged, you'd need to submerge them separately in the future. The treatment from the pressure treated wood will get into the water and offer protection from organisms for all the wood. The reason pressure is used to get the chemicals in is because it would otherwise take a great deal of time for deep penetration. But since you soaked them for 3 years, you basically (I assume) distributed the treatment chemicals into the other wood pieces and to a deeper depth than you could with pressure. Very interesting results, and great result learning about the self-applied treatment. Very interesting that it's essentially degrading the wood.
If you try this experiment again, could you do a sample that is chard and oil treated?
I would love to see how old wood treatment techniques hold up to modern treatment.
I always soak my fence post for a couple weeks in a bucket full of diesel deeper than the hole I'm going to put the posts in. I've never had an issue with post rot or termites
Good test.🙂
When it comes to wood in a bucket then you should not forget that the treated wood's antirot stuff leaks out into the water and help the untreated wood, the samples should have been kept in separate buckets.
I did a similar experiment with post end caps.
the best survivor was treated with penetrating Dutch oil, allowed to cure, and then coated with oil based Spar varnish
I used a half coconut shell (hairless) as a post-end domed cap, tapped it on for a tight fit, & treated it with the same preservative as the post & fence. It will probably outlast the fence & post, & me too.
Do you mean Danish oil?
Viewer in the USA. Very informative video. many years ago when I visited the UK - we noted that the climate was cooler and seemed to be somewhat less harsh ... area of US I live is subtropical.
Carpenters over here also noted the changeover when treated lumber went from the CCA to the newest stuff circa early 2000's. Curious with your results, I looked up the MSDS on your brand of "Ever Built" wood preserver - - the ingredients didn't look so hot to me.
The product looked primarily water-based and had some fungicides in water solution with perhaps polymer base that would dry and act to hopefully seal out water.
The poor results you got made me think it reflects this product's very low toxicity makeup. At least over here in the USA they still sell some wood treatments that have bad chemicals - but I think something along the lines of PVA (watered down Franklin 3) water sealer would probably be best beyond standard pressure treatment.
I am wondering if the product that you used alter ed the pH chemistry of the wood leaving it somewhat susceptible overtime to rot?
If anyone with more knowledge on this topic could chime in it would be very informative! 😊
cool... I think the ones in the bucket kinda ended up "sharing" the treatment chemicals by sitting in the same water, effectively treating them all by capilarity, hygroscopic movement an such...
Or, more likely, the water blocked oxygen from the wood. Is well known that very low and very high moisture content prevents decay of wood. The problem is everything in between.
I helped a friend build deck stairs. We painted the parts before assembly with a plastic base paint. Three years later, still looks new.
The wood preserver you used requires a waterproofing overcoat otherwise it just washes out into the environment. I recently spent along time trying to get my head around the different options for wood treatment and this video has been useful in confirming what I had learnt. The simplest way of understanding is to think of treatments being split into two approaches: biocidal or water resisting. Many products are just one or the other. There aren't many that do a good job of both. Barretine Wood Preserver seems to be the only one I could find but even that specifies that it is not for in-ground usage. I think I've concluded the best option is probably to just go down the water proofing route and use a silicone based treatment such as Roxil Wood protection liquid/cream. This is also less polluting to the environment. No biocide is needed if the wood is kept dry.
If it washed out you would think it would act like the untreated wood though right?
@@Rissen_ It's a small sample so might just be chance, but if there is a difference then I can only speculate. Perhaps the treatment is dissolving some of the woods own natural protection, just a wild speculation
@@peepiepo yeah fair enough
That "wood preserver" is a total come on scam. More like wood destroyer. You're literally better off not using it at all.
used motor oil does both and leaves the wood a pretty golden brown
That is very interesting. Thanks for your work on this. My old man used to say before pressure treating they would coat any wood liberally in used oil before placing in the ground. Sounded like it worked.
I PAINT all my outdoor wood projects with *Titebond III Waterproof Wood Glue* before painting them with outdoor paint. It creates a hard waterproof surface that makes the wood last *MUCH* longer than with paint alone.
Very interesting! from a 50 year cabinetmaker/ house builder / commercial shop owner. Love that sort of innovation. About the same price as good paint. I used to build wood windows of sugar pine and soak them in a massive metal tub of wax and diesel and turpentine and linseed oil with a fire under it.
Sounds like a good idea, have you had good results?
Yes, looks good and water beads up on them.@@warrenwerks
it would also be great in trapping water in if there is any damage to the surface.
My house has painted wood shingle siding. It's 75 years old and still ok.
Real world testing yourself is always respectable. Especially testing in the evorinment you intend to use the materials in.
Possibly the samples placed between the others had less surface area to vent moisture and that helped to accelerate the decay.
Is it possible that the samples in the water all benefitted from leaching chemicals from the pressure treated or other? Thus preserving them all? Simply a thought. Awesome video!
Used to stand new fence posts in a bucket, containing 50/50 diesel and old engine oil, for a couple of weeks. Works a treat
Used motor oil and diesel fuel, the thicker and blacker the oil the better. I used my lawnmower engine for the oil and cut it thin enough to soak into the wood with diesel. Works like a charm
Plot twist, the chemicals from the treated sample in the water bucket got over to all samples and preserved them!
I had no idea that cutting pressure treated lumber was treated the whole way through. Thank you cut the education!
Iv'e had great results with a mix of old engine oil and diesel, 50 50. Not enviromently friendly but used by lots of people on allotments.
Used this on any posts I've buried in the ground. I like to leave them soaked in the mixture for days if possible. Almost certainly prolongs the life of the wood
When I used to put posts in I used to burn the ends first, that would seal them up for good.
Think about adding to just one method I wonder if burning bf would prevent absorption si I'm consider burning afterward but still.wooried about cracks that can't be burning inside
i noticed that the pieces were placed close together, possibly providing the inner pieces less chance to dry out. the outer pieces/sides would generally be better off I'd assume.
in our country, CCA treated wood is still widely available and is pretty standard when purchasing 'outdoor rated' timber.
creosote is also available and is generally used for outside wooden sheds and is very low maintenance as it penetrates and does not peel as other coatings may do.
20 years.
One of my old bosses husband was a joinery company owner and he told me one of there suppliers had pine timber that was treated 70 years ago and put in all sorts of places and its still as good as they day as they treated it.
They just keep updating the product sheet good for 80 years now!
70 year old wood is likely to have tighter growth rings as newer timber tends to be quicker grown varieties. Perhaps that contributes to the effectiveness of that particular preserver? And it's likely to be a completely different chemical makeup to modern preservers.
About 25 years ago, I fenced an acre of my garden (in interior Alaska) to keep my dogs safe in the yard. Initially, I used unpeeled 8' x 6" spruce logs, sunk 3' in the ground with pea gravel to tighten the log in the hole. As the fence progressed, I peeled the bark off, and applied two coated of green copper wood preservative, which looked very nice with the tight, welded wire fencing.
Years later, I was shocked to find that the early posts (with bark!) actually outlasted the ones I had fussed over with preservative.
You should have spread them more the ones at the middle didntget the same ability to dry or air exposure
I have a pressure treated lumber deck (uncovered, in Seattle rain) I built in 1992 that is still holding up great.
Everything I've built in the last decade lasts about 3 years before serious issues start. Whatever they used back in the early 90's where I live was WAY better. At least in my small sample size.
Can you imagine that, a corporation selling crap that doesn't do what it says it does! A company could piss in a cup and call it a health food and we would have no real way of knowing
Yeah... and a mask that barely filters dust particles, sheilds you from said invisible enigma.
@@MrCazjd
In their defence , I bet if you read the label it says: "Not rated for ground contact", a deck sealer shouldn't be used for wood that touches the ground. They make specific dealers for ground contact, and yes they are nasty and contain copper.
@@MrCazjdyou are an idiot for turning a discussion about wood into antivax BS
@MrCazjd Christ you people are like weeds...
@@thehumantoeRD
You fell for it... Didn't you!?
What type of wood preservative was it? Ive used linseed oil and tung oil etc. theres a lot of different products
One thing I can't help but notice is that half the samples are at the end and exposed on three sides, while the other half are sandwiched in the middle of others. I think this accounts for why the 'PT with cut end' out performs the 'PT with uncut end' and probably also why the untreated out performs the self treatmented.
Same thing I said. Cutting doesn't make a difference for PT wood, but being able to dry on 3 sides vs only 2 small sides does.
@@bobbygetsbanned6049of course cutting makes a difference.
The pressure treatment doesn't reach all the way to the center of the wood, so when you cut it your expose the untreated center and make it easier for fungi and insects to reach the untreated part
Fascinating examination of another man's wood.
I swore by creosote when I was younger, mostly because I liked the smell of it
made a lot of garden furniture for my family and had found 4 big pre ban jugs of it in an allotment shed we cleared out
the stuff I put creosote on is still going strong to this day (still smelling strong too)
everything else has rotted away
where i'm from smart people use old engine oil, just keep a bucket of the black stuff after you do an oil change, it'll last you forever.
@@windhelmguard5295 It's cancerous and toxic for humans too :P
@vrstoned7870 -- In the U.S. CCA was banned for the same reason, and when that happened, I looked into the research behind the ban, and what was tested was the chemical itself. The hypotheses regarding the actual transfer of the chemical from treated wood to humans were rather whimsical and not tested, as far as I could see, though it was generally accepted that one wouldn't want to stand downwind from a pile of burning CCA-treated lumber. My takeaway was that the workers at pressure-treating plants and those close to burning CCA lumber needed to be careful, as well as the carpenters working with those pieces with excess CCA residue and the finer particles in airborne sawdust. Nonetheless, loads of playground equipment made from CCA-treated wood were dismantled and replaced, without any clear reported evidence to any danger to children playing on that equipment.
@@windhelmguard5295 I do the same . Have done this for many years only because it makes sense in regards to bacteria and bugs especially. I have no data to back it up though. Just find it hard to throw this oil away. I am a fan of burning posts bottoms before burying also and for good measure use the engine oil.
@@johnr.johnston5808 another really helpful trick is to never have bare end grain facing up, that'll cause issues even on the most well preserved wood in the world.
What a great video. I've just built a huge decking frame and treated the cut ends with a preserver, i wonder if different preservers make any difference.
You might not be an expert but you're definitely a scientist The moment you devised this experiment you became a scientist
Well put. A scientist is a person individual using the scientific method to do their work. And this was absolutely done with the scientific method. Is he keeps posting these over several years, he might even get a degree from a university out of the blue ; am Honorary Degree for performed work or when he decided too bundle the whole archive of work and polish and edit and write a accompanying booklet with proper references etc and in a conversation with a uni group dealing with similar research he could do a defence/presentation of the that total body of work to a commission and get appointed a PhD. There's multiple routes to a PhD, not merely the standard route.
To back to the main point; yes he is (being) a scientist and it is awesome.
A tip I leant is to put some varnish on the cut ends to help keep the water out.
Arrggh!! I was about to build a recycling bin store, now I daren't! My wife won't accept "Keith said no" as a reason. What to do????
It's the part in contact with the ground, could make that part sacrificial and laying flat
4 pvc deck blocks as 'foundation' and you're good
When I built my compost storage bin from wood, I used green treated!
Top coated with a mixture 1/3 each linseed oil, kerosene, and paint thinner. After treatment all remaining brushes, rags, and supplies were burned in the backyard fire pit purely for safety reasons (linseed oil can spontaneously combust).
Good test - if putting in fence posts I clad them in plastic to above the ground and put tops on each post as a lot of damage is caused by water seeping in from the top and travelling down the length of the post.
I was taught that the main purpose of treated wood is to prevent insects from eating it....NOT preventing the wood from moisture or sun. We would buy borate in powder form, dissolve it in water, and use a pump sprayer to soak untreated lumber. If you plan on putting lumber into dirt you're going to need a moisture barrier like bitumen (black tar). You may have noticed wooden telephone poles have that black tar around the base.
Thank you, great info for consideration. Beware of pressure treated wood that is not fully dried, hi moisture content, as it can warp.
That’s shocking that the preserver was so bad. Would not have guessed.
It's likely it's just sealing the timber so it holds water until it's washed away.
@@TheWebstaff This stuff doesn't seal the wood at all, for external use it needs to be top coated or the treatment is washed away first time it gets wet. Unfortunately, it looks like this was the wrong preserveer for this job, maybe reading all of the instructions before starting a 3-year long test would have been a good idea. I don't think there is necessarily anything that would make it rot faster than untreated, I think it might just be that it had zero effect and bad luck meant it was at the bottom.
You have to use a specific product for wood that makes contact with the ground. I bet a million dollars that if he read the label it would say as much. No one ever reads labels anymore....
Wow. Very interesting results. Thank you for doing this. I believe it reinforced a lot of what I already knew, but also moving forward, I will absolutely not let timber come in contact with the ground. And any woods exposed to the air, I will coat annually with appropriate sealers. Outside decks or fences, I use clear diesel and used motor oil. I have a wood bridge running across a creek on my property. I've replaced the deck boards with pressure treated wood. So far, they have lasted 7 years without sealant. They are looking rather warn, however. I can only imagine how much better they would look and how much longer they would have lasted had I sealed them.
Thanks again for the video.
Wooden posts will generally always rot / break at ground level. Yonks ago, we use to mix 50/50 old engine oil & Creosote to try and delay things a bit. There is another idea, a heat shrink plastic wrap type of thing. Put over the post at just above and below ground level and use a heat gun to shrink to the contour of wood.
With wood being organic it's going to rot at some stage ! Try using using solid plastic posts, as heavy as concrete, were being made from recycled HDPE or PET by a Dutch company.
postsaver is one I've seen in the UK, similar in the US. Looks like combo of plastic shrinkwrap and tar
Postsaver is a great product.i use it in all fence posts I put in.. durapost- metal posts are great too
Yes, Postsaver sleeves, I use them from time to time. They come with a 20 year guarantee against wood rot in the fence post.
They make what is called "End Cut Solution" that is the same stuff that is used to pressure treat wood. Painting all cut end grains and setting in concrete that remains proud of the hole will help them last longer.
Treat timber as follows; Step 1 char the outside with a torch until its carbonized.
Step 2 soak wood timbers in combination of used motor oil and diesel fuel. for at least a month.
This method has been used for over a hundred years to protect fence posts other timbers in contact with soil for up to forty years.
I worked in a CCA pressure treatment plant back in the 1970s. At the time, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) said you could expect 25 years out of CCA treated softwood before failure.
I posted an anecdote I was told about this that somewhere one of the suppliers has some softwood that must be nearly 90 years old that's been treated and it just keeps going.
They sell the same stuff that is used to treat wood, it is usually called End Cut Solution and is used to coat the end grain of pressure treated wood you've cut. It is what you are supposed to coat wood that is to be buried. I bet the product he used is for coating a deck and not rated for ground contact.
I have some cca fence posts that are still good after nearly 50 years.
Thanks for a cool video! Really grateful that you address the growth rings at the end, I was thinking about it the whole time:)
I have a mate who swears by soaking fence posts for 24 hours in used diesel engine oil before he drops them in the hole. That would be a good experiment.
Thats an old trick, used engine oil is full of all sorts of unpleasant chemicals. I've used it on fencing field posts but not around my garden.
I've done that experiment to 740 ft of 8ft tall privacy fence pickets nearly 9 years ago and I can tell you it absolutely preserves the wood. My neighbor had the same style fence, same materials put in a year before my fence. His was mold green and rotten and replaced in 2021. Mine is still in great shape with ZERO mold on the pickets, some mold on the posts near the ground. I used 3 coats of used motor oil. It leaves a golden brown color and is an excellent protectant.
Yeah and you pollute ground water with that but who gives a shit, ay?
@@sergeant_cross_To a certain amount yes. Very localised and constantly replacing wood has an environmental impact.
Used oil is chock-full of carcinogens. You have poisoned your land. New oil is much, much safer.
Well done you've shown the relative protection offered in a consistent way over time. The lesson is pressure treat and avoid direct wood to ground contact. No surprise there. Thank you
Keith loves his spreadsheets.
Not as much as Matthias :)
Well presented and straight to the point (no faffing) thank you. I have just had new fencing installed with pressure treated wood with a life expectancy of around 20 years in south east England. Wood fence posts were sunk in a bagged specialist premix fast setting concrete which also is reported as being the best securing medium by test. Fixings were also of a protected variety.
It seems my investment is as good as it gets.
I'm sorry, but you should have done a little bit more thinking about your experimental design. The boards on the end have more surface area exposed to soil than those in the middle. Why wouldn't you separate them each by a few inches of soil? Your experiment would be far more useful and valid if you had. As is, your results are highly biased towards the inner boards.
Definitely different conditions for the end and middle board's. This could have been avoided either by spacing the boards apart (as you suggest) or sandwiching all 4 with two other boards on the ends and not using those end boards in the results. Probably the best option would have been both set ups in parallel: with space and with end boards. It seems that the boards on the ends did better overall than the ones in the middle, so there seems to be a confounding variable about boards that touch.
I think I speak for many in saying we really appreciate your experiment here.
Thanks for your Test
I wonder how treated wood plus a coating would had performed. Would the coating made it rot away more quickly or may for this only time protect it.
Thanks for sharing the extended test. Here in the US, wood treatment includes versions copper naphthenate ("copper green"). Horrible stuff to deal with, but it seems to work OK. PT wood used to have arsenic in it, and was poisoning ground water. Better to just avoid using perishable vegetable matter in construction, if possible.
I was told by a neighbour that the reason you have decay on fenceposts is because of the oxygen near the top layer. It gets wet then dry, then wet, then dry. This is evident in your findings because the ones you had under water didn't decay and if it was the case that the bugs ate the timber it would rot all the way down into the ground which it often doesn't. The rot usually occurs within the top 4inches.
He seemed to know what he was talking about. So what I did is cover that section with concrete leaving a bevel edge above ground. I have yet to go back and check to see the results.
However great little experiment you have done and it is very helpful in deciding what the best idea is to trust our wood. Thanks for sharing ;)
I’ve noticed the same over the years, and with posts in piers in the water. The area that is continuously exposed to wet and dry and air is usually the most rotten! The end’s of the 4x4’s in the lake bottom were usually in like new!