10-16-2009, 05:23 PM
Well I tried my test again, the 'subjects' and conditions being very similar to the first time, and the results are surprisingly different. I used the same linen, glue and actual rain outside at a temperature of about 12C- the two things I changed this time was to seal the edges of the swatches with silicone caulking- because I really wondered if the wick effect were a significant contributor to the result last time- and I didn't saturate the outer layers of linen with glue. One sample was left 'natural' with nothing added to its exterior, the other was liberally coated with paste beeswax.
After 25 minutes in the constant, medium-hard rain (not pouring but not just a drizzle- which remained consistent throughout the test period), it was clear the unprotected sample was absorbing water (it was darkening and felt somewhat slippery), and the wax-coated sample was not- the water just pooling in numerous places. The unprotected sample was quite flexible while the waxed sample remained relatively rigid, furhter confirming water was and wasn't being absorbed, respectively.
After 85 minutes, little had changed- the unprotected sample felt a little more slimy and more flexible but not to a large degree, and the waxed sample remianed protected and rigid.
I terminated the test at 120 minutes. Visually neither sample had changed, nor did their respective flexibilities seem any different. I cut off one edge of each sample to see the cross-section and this confirmed that no water had penetrated the waxed sample from the face. The unprotected sample was the significant surprise- water had indeed penetrated, to a depth of about 2mm (total thickness about 5mm), however there was no evidence of the layers separating due to flexing- even attempting to pry the layers apart only achieved a little separation of the outer layer. With a pointed tool, the outer layer could be pulled off without a lot of force, but deeper layers were not so easy.
Neither sample behaved the same way as last time- I got no delamination, the glue didn't absorb a huge amount of water and overall a cuirass made either way does look to be quite safe from even significant rainfall.
Why this time was so different I can only attribute to protecting the edges- I noted last time that my protected samples did absorb a good deal of water from the edges despite them having been treated just as the faces were. The wick effect must simply be far more sigificant than I'd initially expected. Perhaps also glue exposed on the surface somehow increases the water absorption- I also may have used more last time. I now wish I'd controlled for the edges at least this time- included a sample without the silicone- but oh well, next time. Beeswax doesn't seem necessarily a reasonable protectant given the availability issue- olive or another oil seems rather more likely and I'd like to try paint as well, so there will be a next time for sure.
After 25 minutes in the constant, medium-hard rain (not pouring but not just a drizzle- which remained consistent throughout the test period), it was clear the unprotected sample was absorbing water (it was darkening and felt somewhat slippery), and the wax-coated sample was not- the water just pooling in numerous places. The unprotected sample was quite flexible while the waxed sample remained relatively rigid, furhter confirming water was and wasn't being absorbed, respectively.
After 85 minutes, little had changed- the unprotected sample felt a little more slimy and more flexible but not to a large degree, and the waxed sample remianed protected and rigid.
I terminated the test at 120 minutes. Visually neither sample had changed, nor did their respective flexibilities seem any different. I cut off one edge of each sample to see the cross-section and this confirmed that no water had penetrated the waxed sample from the face. The unprotected sample was the significant surprise- water had indeed penetrated, to a depth of about 2mm (total thickness about 5mm), however there was no evidence of the layers separating due to flexing- even attempting to pry the layers apart only achieved a little separation of the outer layer. With a pointed tool, the outer layer could be pulled off without a lot of force, but deeper layers were not so easy.
Neither sample behaved the same way as last time- I got no delamination, the glue didn't absorb a huge amount of water and overall a cuirass made either way does look to be quite safe from even significant rainfall.
Why this time was so different I can only attribute to protecting the edges- I noted last time that my protected samples did absorb a good deal of water from the edges despite them having been treated just as the faces were. The wick effect must simply be far more sigificant than I'd initially expected. Perhaps also glue exposed on the surface somehow increases the water absorption- I also may have used more last time. I now wish I'd controlled for the edges at least this time- included a sample without the silicone- but oh well, next time. Beeswax doesn't seem necessarily a reasonable protectant given the availability issue- olive or another oil seems rather more likely and I'd like to try paint as well, so there will be a next time for sure.
See FABRICA ROMANORVM Recreations in the Marketplace for custom helmets, armour, swords and more!
