<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span>Hello
everybody,
<blockquote cite="mid:003401ce31ea$3bf9ad90$b3ed08b0$@co.za"
type="cite">
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">......for
instance I would think that if one had an earth plaster
for instance which was very well bonded into the straw
(as with say a pre-dipping method where one has up to
80mm of earth fused with the outer layer of straw) </span></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I just wanted to comment on the dipping method for creating a
-supposed- superior bond.<br>
<br>
Chris Magwood (correct me if I'm wrong) who has dipped with French
Dip-Tom Rijven has tested different types of bonding plaster to
bales and the outcome (not surprisingly) was that dipped bales do
NOT hold their plaster any better then other methods. <br>
<br>
I have also dipped with Tom and opening up them bales afterwards
showed no penetration in dense bales.<br>
<br>
IMHO, in order to create the best bond one can, one has to drive the
plaster into the bales as hard as one can. <br>
Letting a bale sit in a few inches of slip does not 'wick' the
plaster in a bale. And if it does go into the bale, I worry about
the density of that bale.<br>
<br>
Have a nice weekend,<br>
André<br>
France<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>