Observed Effects are Real; Explanations May Not Be

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This has come up time and again in all sorts of reefing discussions, from manufacturer claims to hobbyist discussions of their systems.

1. Anything someone observes is real, and has some real explanation (assuming its not a lie)

2. Any explanation of an observation should ALWAYS be treated as a hypothesis. Often the explanation is incorrect.

There are all sorts of hobby examples, and it is important for reefers to understand the difference. A true observation DOES NOT PROVE a hypothesized explanation.

But let's pick an example from a different area that I encountered yesterday so no one thinks I'm picking on them.

Floor finishes. Zar is a seemingly reputable brand with product sold in a great many stores.

Oil- vs Water-Based Stains: Which is Right for You?

This article compares oil-based and water-based stain types to help you make the best decision for your project. Let's dive in!

www.zar.com

Observations about oil based stains vs water based stains:

wood stains that contain oil have been proven to be longer-lasting and possess higher durability than those consisting of only water.
Oil-based stains provide a darker, richer color
Oil-based stains provide a more lasting finish on wood than water-based alternatives

Explanations of these observations

Oil-based stains provide a more lasting finish on wood than water-based alternatives due to their ability to deeply penetrate the surface.
Oil-based stains provide a darker, richer color as they bind with the wood to create a film that reflects light and adds dimension.
Compared to water molecules, oil molecules are much smaller in size, enabling them to penetrate the board more deeply with an added layer of moisture beneath its surface.

I accept their observations as true (although one cannot be certain of how general they are correctly applied).

But the explanations? Those are a mixed bag of likely true to totally ridiculous fabrications. Of course they are there to make the observations sound convincing, since there's a clear reason attached to them. For some folks, Zar likely is convincing them even if the facts shows it is ludicrous.

Explanation 1 oil lasts longer to to deeper penetration. Might be true. Might not be. Is depth of penetration really why they last longer? Maybe
Oils bind to the wood to create a film the reflects light and adds dimension? Sounds made up. Film of what? the pigment? Why doesn't a water stain leave a similar film? How does a reflective film add dimension?

But the last is the true kicker that should make anyone skeptical of the entire set of explanations:

Compared to water molecules, oil molecules are much smaller in size, enabling them to penetrate the board more deeply with an added layer of moisture beneath its surface.

Fail. Water molecules are far, far smaller than ANY oil molecule. Water is among the smallest possible molecules. If Zar believes that oil penetrates because it is smaller than water (which obviously isn't true), why should we believe other, more complicated aspects of their explanations, such as an "added layer of moisture beneath the surface" or any of explanations mentioned above. The author clearly has no understanding of what's going on.

 

[rishma]

I laughed at the water/oil molecule size. That’s really bad. Their advertising people definitely ditched science in high school.

 

[geologeek]

I laughed at the water/oil molecule size. That’s really bad. Their advertising people definitely ditched science in high school.

I say this in jest......

But if I take a cup of dirt, some water and some oil and put them in a bottle and shake it up, when I let it settle I find the big stones at the bottom, followed by progressively smaller stones, then sand, then silt and clay then water and finally the oil.......

So clearly the oil is the smallest molecule....... because it's at the very top!

Magic!

 

[Miami Reef]

If someone says “my coral does better because of manganese” but they were unaware that they also changed their light, flow, and even started dosing phytoplankton around the same time, then how can we be sure it was the manganese that is related to their observation?

 

[BeanAnimal]

I laughed at the water/oil molecule size. That’s really bad. Their advertising people definitely ditched science in high school.

The assumption being the VOCs in the “oil based” are what are smaller and the carrier of the solids — and they evaporate out of the oil, leaving the solids and the oil create a polymer — with the marketing being broad layman’s understanding, but I don’t disagree with Randy’s point and none of that means it is better than water or alkyd based coatings.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The assumption being the VOCs in the “oil based” are what are smaller and the carrier of the solids — with the marketing being broad layman’s understanding, but I don’t disagree with Randy’s point.

What is smaller than what?

Without knowing an answer (googling keeps saying the wrong size issue), I hypothesize several differences:

1. The organic solvents have a far lower surface tension than water, allowing it to penetrate smaller pores.

2. The pigments dispersed in organics may have smaller sizes than the pigments dispersed in water that may need surfactants to disperse well.

3 The wood may be somewhat hydrophobic in its pores, making organics penetrate more readily.

4. Organics may allow hydrophobic interactions holding adjacent cellulose molecules together to weaken, opening up the pores.

 

[BeanAnimal]

What is smaller than what?

Without knowing an answer (googling keeps saying the wrong size issue), I hypothesize several differences:

1. The organic solvents have a far lower surface tension than water, allowing it to penetrate smaller pores.

2. The pigments dispersed in organics may have smaller sizes than the pigments dispersed in water that may need surfactants to disperse well.

3 The wood may be somewhat hydrophobic in its pores, making organics penetrate more readily.

4. Organics may allow hydrophobic interactions holding adjacent cellulose molecules together to weaken, opening up the pores.

I would tend to think all of those points are mostly valid, though I couldn’t speak at all to #4 — and assume “thinner” would be a much more appropriate term than “smaller”.

I have read an awful lot of coating science over the years, partly due to my curiosity, and partly trying to actually figure out what makes a good exterior wood preservative. In short, getting pigments and solids deeper into the wood pores provides better protection (UV, biological, mechanical). But that is beyond the point of this thread I suppose.

I do agree fully with your overall premise stated in this thread.

 

[JTP424]

This just makes me think of the phenomenon where "particles" change based on observation vs not. Makes my brain hurt.

 

[rishma]

A true observation DOES NOT PROVE a hypothesized explanation.

You forgot about the YouTube Axiom. If it’s observed by someone with a YouTube channel and they explain it, that’s science.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If someone says “my coral does better because of manganese” but they were unaware that they also changed their light, flow, and even started dosing phytoplankton around the same time, then how can we be sure it was the manganese that is related to their observation?

Yes.

Think of these scenarios:

1. I added magnesium yesterday and today my torch is closed up. Why did magnesium do that?

2. My torch closed up and I don’t know why.

We see both of those sorts of scenarios all the time. Folks reasonably look back at what they did recently, but then sometimes jump to the cause and effect when both situations may have nothing to do with magnesium.

 

[Dan_P]

Looks like the human AI can “hallucinate” too

 

[Dan_P]

Yes.

Think of these scenarios:

1. I added magnesium yesterday and today my torch is closed up. Why did magnesium do that?

2. My torch closed up and I don’t know why.

We see both of those sorts of scenarios all the time. Folks reasonably look back at what they did recently, but then sometimes jump to the cause and effect when both situations may have nothing to do with magnesium.

Post hoc fallacy

 

[sixty_reefer]

Seems plausible although isn’t that a description of the whole hobby?
Look at N and P, some observe better results with lower residual and others will have the same observations at higher residual.
Same could be said to almost all aspects of this hobby, that’s why there is so much discussion, just folks arguing different observations. Some times we even add articles to our discussion and even some of those articles it’s just observations.
In resume chemistry can’t be discussed but the effects of chemistry on biology events can never be made to be an absolute truth in this hobby imo.

 

[BeanAnimal]

@sixty_reefer

I think you may have wholly missed the point.

— Observed Effects are Real; Explanations May Not Be —

 

[Dan_P]

[

What is smaller than what?

Without knowing an answer (googling keeps saying the wrong size issue), I hypothesize several differences:

1. The organic solvents have a far lower surface tension than water, allowing it to penetrate smaller pores.

2. The pigments dispersed in organics may have smaller sizes than the pigments dispersed in water that may need surfactants to disperse well.

3 The wood may be somewhat hydrophobic in its pores, making organics penetrate more readily.

4. Organics may allow hydrophobic interactions holding adjacent cellulose molecules together to weaken, opening up the pores.

I am tired of chasing phosphate myths. Maybe we should discuss the experiments to conduct. Besides the lab I have a wood shop.

 

[hoffmeyerz]

Observations about oil based stains vs water based stains:

Right on as usual! @Randy Holmes-Farley I always enjoy reading your topics and insights but I must say you made me choke on my coffee today!!
I own and run a hardwood flooring company and when I saw the post start talking about stains and finishes I shot coffee out my nose and closed my phone, I come to the forum for a break from my "real" life. LOL

 

[sixty_reefer]

@sixty_reefer

I think you may have wholly missed the point.

— Observed Effects are Real; Explanations May Not Be —

Isn’t that what I just mentioned earlier?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Right on as usual! @Randy Holmes-Farley I always enjoy reading your topics and insights but I must say you made me choke on my coffee today!!
I own and run a hardwood flooring company and when I saw the post start talking about stains and finishes I shot coffee out my nose and closed my phone, I come to the forum for a break from my "real" life. LOL

Sorry! lol

I guess “expect the unexpected” is the take home message for you.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I am tired of chasing phosphate myths. Maybe we should discuss the experiments to conduct. Besides the lab I have a wood shop.

Various oil based products provide differing levels of food that can fuel fungus and mold growth, turning some decks black very quickly. We can head on over to one of the woodworking forums and start a thread and experiments…

 

[rishma]

@sixty_reefer

I think you may have wholly missed the point.

— Observed Effects are Real; Explanations May Not Be —

You had to do it, didn’t you…