Crusty:

Thanks for the follow up. The Donut Story is not meant to cover all conditions
or reasons but I believe it works to get a point across.  It would be great to
get some real wood technologists to jump into the middle of this.

New wood has the starches and sugars that are more readily available than old
wood. This means that molds, which do not cause decay, are more likely to start
on new wood than old. Molds attack the surface of the wood and certain storage
cells. The result makes the wood more porous. The damage to the surface results
in paint failure and water entry leading to conditions that are agreeable to
decay fungi. Yes, yes, yes, there are lots of issues that apply to the
durability of wood. [heartwood vs sapwood, old growth vs new growth, woods with
lots of protective extracts vs woods with few protective extracts, maintenance
vs non maintenance, good details vs poor details, exposure to the elements vs
protection from the elements, painted vs non painted and for some woods non
painted vs painted, there is also the squirrels wanting to get in vs squirrels
wanting to get out, and maybe even storm windows vs no storm windows and
.......]

Any how, I stand by my Donut story as a good way to get the idea of new not
always being better than old at the same dollar cost.

Can we get "Uncle Donuts" to do a two hour demonstration at this years IPTW in
Harrisburg, PA??

=========



"Trelstad, Derek" wrote:

> Hmmm. As in the guy who makes the donuts? Two of my nieces call one of their
> uncles -- not me, thankfully -- Uncle Donuts. I think he popped a whole
> Krispy Kreme classic glazed in his great maw, chewed twice, and swallowed.
> To a three- or four-year old obviously an awesome and memorable event.
>
> That said, to the question: I wonder about the analogy. There are many
> arguments for an against keeping original wood sash. I am all for having yet
> another -- the fight can be long and exhausting. But, I am not sure this one
> really works -- completely. It is probably truthful to state that the
> windows that are reglazed (putty only) and stripped and painted are the best
> of the lot, provided all the windows were maintained to the same standards.
> Those that need the least amount of work are probably constructed with the
> best quality material, at least as far as rot-resistance. (There is the
> truth.) Those that need repairs are by the same token not the best. Good
> repairs and regular maintenance will keep the second set of windows in
> service. But, should maintenance stop on any of the windows -- original and
> unrepaired and repaired -- and conditions become favorable to insect
> infestation or fungal attack, both the original and repaired windows will be
> almost equally subject to decay. Or, such has been my experience. And,
> straight from by book of cliches, therein lies the rub.
>
> Unlike donuts cellulose remains as tasty -- to termitos and fungi -- after a
> century of service as the day it was cut. Does anyone have documentation
> that would support the donut theory of decay?
>
> Sign me,
>
> Crusty (for no reason other than it is colder today than yesterday and I
> would rather be at home reading a novel)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Bryan Blundell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 8:00 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bottom of the food chain...
>
> Met History wrote:
>
> > Architect/coop shareholder who is supervising the restoration (not
> > replacement) of the several hundred wooden windows in his coop, at a cost
> > comparable to that of getting entirely new wooden windows:
> >
>
> Good choice.
>
> Even though the repair costs are comparable to new wood windows the dollar
> value
> to the repair compared to the new is most likely greater. The assumption
> here is
> that the existing windows are better than replacements for several reasons.
> The
> one reason I will bring up now is the idea of wood being a food source for
> decay
> fungi.
>
> Think about going to a conference that last several days. At the morning
> break on
> the first day there is a hugh pile of donuts at the coffee table. Most
> attendees
> happily help themselves to one or more of these sugary bread treats and
> maybe
> without anything to drink. At the afternoon break, some people take another
> donut
> with something to drink while others consider them too stale to bother with.
> The
> next morning, with donuts still plentiful, a few people love to dunk stale
> donuts
> in their coffee. That afternoon some kids come by and swipe a few, now hard
> dry
> hockey puck like, donuts. Then head to the water fountain because the donuts
> are
> so dry. The following morning, most of the remaining donuts are placed in
> bags to
> give to homeless people. The remaining donuts are taken to the dumpster and
> will
> end up feeding the birds at the landfill.
>
> As the donuts age and change due to exposure to the environment, the likely
> hood
> of being a desirable food source decreases. They are still a food source, it
> is
> just that the condition needs to become more extreme for the donuts to be
> used as
> a food source.
>
> Now, think of new wood window as a food source and think of them a nice,
> fresh,
> hot, just out of the oven donuts. Add a little moisture and we have the
> fungi
> convention attendees lining up at the morning break table. Yum, yum.  Now
> serving
> new windows and doors in a variety of flavors including exotic tastes from
> South
> America and Asia.
>
> Next time you think about repair or replacement of any architectural wood
> element,
> think of nice hot fresh donuts.
>
> Now for the next story about the hard working wood boring insect. Once upon
> ...........
>
> Mr. Donut