Accsys, an environmental science technology company floated today on AIM at 1 Euro p/share. Their subsidiary Titan wood converses softwoods into hardwoods thru acetylation. Have a look at www.titanwood.com and /or obtain a copy of collins stewart research in company. Could be massive

FWIW, I'm not convinced.
1) - I don't like overseas listed ( dual with AIM) stocks.
2) - I don't like construction at this time in property cycle
3) - I don't think this business/technology can give me a return from current sp.

They say"....Wood acetylation is a process which increases the amount of '
acetyl' molecules in wood, thereby changing its physical properties. The
process protects wood from rot by making it 'inedible' to most micro-organisms
and insects, without - unlike conventional treatments - making it toxic. It
also greatly reduces the wood's tendency to swell and shrink, making it less
prone to cracking and ensuring that when painted it requires dramatically
reduced maintenance...."
Let's look carefully - acetic acid is surprisingly active and has a peculiar smell ...now it may be nothing to do with this process...but they aren't exactly telling us. I accept reducing microbe-action is A Good Thing - yet why suggest painting it? As soon as wood is painted there is a maintenance issue - anywhere you can't reach cannot be re-painted. and paint is easily "blown" when the wood heats up, not just expansion, but the air pressure from within ( wood contains a lot of air, that's why it floats).
IMHO It is far better to apply a stain, which allows the under-wood surface to be examined...and should protect the wood from attack since the inscects will go elsewhere, or their grubs are poisoned. Stain also permits breathing. Some paints are "micro-porous" but hugely expensive, which rather negates the point. Paint cover is difficult to check.

However, one excellent reason for chosing a hardwood is the grain. Pine has a horrid pattern and if you expect to paint it - it's hidden anyway. Therfore it's not a real alternative to hardwood...plus most building-timber is pine anyway - with no regard to the long-term effects, except in roof-timbers where is iis (generally pressureised)...I just fail to see the attraction of this process...although I have to admit the exact process is not explained. But it does appear to need painting and cannot give an acceptable grain-fisinsh.

If you are building a fancy house needing large timbers, then these timebers will be exposed to show-off the value. By painting pine - the building loses its whole point and (home-) Buyers will discount the price because of cheap timber. Furthermore, will this process cover for the life of the building - c.150 years?I doubt it very much and the marginal saving (against expensive wood) will be forgotten long before then...meaning you are stuck with something that's not better - and probably a lot worse.
IMHO - it matters not that this process works . . . . since I cannot think of anywhere where the benefits will apply. Furthermore what's to stop any pressure-treatment factory from switching to this process - how would they get their Royalty? . . . if (say) the "process" was slightly different?
Arrgh!

When I repaired my own home the pine was (still is) nearly 80years old - probably untreated. I applied a generous Rentokil solution of five-star Woodworm.woodrot protection mixed with a little tar. Thsi makes it east to see where it's been applied. The tar is dissolved and soaks intot eh wood, yet there is a small residue on the outside, so thin it dries like a varnish...I believe this is semi-porous to air, where the timbe ris slightly rough, knot-holes etc. It's not possible to cover all wood, since joists are fixed in the building - but they can be done several tiems..and hope. Floorboards soak up a lot and here I mix a small quantity of oil, so it help to fill the cells of the timber, but this process appears to improve the timber, it is heavier even when dry and looks better (subjective!) and I suspect it should enable the wood to hold-up for another 80-years or longer. The benefit of the surface Tar is that any water rolls off - in the unprotected areas it lays and soaks in. Therfore I suspect this process is Good. No doubt a full professional trweatment would be "better" - but it would be expensive and a DIY job is better controlled, although it did smell of Tar for a while, until the flooring went down ( with a paper barrier) and it appears to be very satisfactory even nearly 20 years later...but then I'm not checking it. - I just believe so. Some of the under-stairs floor was treated, so this could be examined...but many roof timebers are untreated and appear to be perfect. These ahve been done with oil and wax ( in summer) as I think this soakls in well and gives the timber a deep tone... whilst being unattractive to wasps intent on nesting in the small spaces they find.
Ceiling koists are not treated, since there is a risk of staining the plaster+ ceiling paper and this would devalue things!

Whether it is "as pretty" as hard wood I do not know, but there are so many applications possible that do not require a nice grain so I do not believe it matters that much. Admit multi porous paints are expensive but only by a factor 2 or 3 if I remember correctly which when you consider the coverage of tin of paint is not that significant. What is significant imho is that it gets hard wood properties from sustainble soft woods.