>Greetings, > This isn't squaring with my results. Straight methanol loosened up the >bushings, many of them too much so. I would not think there was any water >worth consideration, since this was straight from the pharmacy to the action. > >Wondering, >Ed Hi Ed, I have a small bottle of anhydrous methanol that says it is over 90% methanol. I'm assuming the other nearly 10% is water. Maybe not, but it doesn't say one way or another and water seems the most likely to me. Even though anhydrous is supposed to indicate the absence of water, I'm told it's very difficult to produce truly anhydrous alcohol. I've tried it straight, and found that, though it worked without dilution, it worked better when diluted with water. Having observed the effects of water on other wool items, like sweaters, I naturally concluded that the volume of water was what made the difference. Too much water, and it is difficult to get the mix into the wool, so I assumed that the alcohol, in it's various flavors, is the wetting agent. If that "somewhat under 10%" of anhydrous methanol happens to be water (anyone out there know for sure???), then it could still very well be the water that is doing the work even though none was intentionally added. I'm just going on best evidence here, Was there any information on the bottle you bought indicating the concentration? As to why you got such dramatic results from straight methanol, I haven't a clue. Maybe your pharmacist waters down his stock. <G> Wondering too. Ron
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC