Global Journal of Human Social Science, C: Sociology and Culture, Volume 23 Issue 2

VI. D iscussion A) The microscopic data are very clear in terms of the textural characterization of both poultices: In this sense, we highlight the concordance of the porosities obtained by optical methods with those obtained by petrophysical methods. Regarding the retraction differences between the two types of poultices, obviously the individual fibers have had to contract the same magnitude, but in the case of “GPM” that retraction was resolved at microscopic level and was not transmitted to nearby fibers due to lack of "contact between them". On the other hand, “handmade” poultice’s greater interlacement of the nearby fibers caused the retraction (at microscopic level) to be transmitted tothe whole poultice. B) Regarding water and cellulose consumption in the elaboration of the poultices, in the case of the “handmade”, a reasonable workability was found in 2.5 grams of water per gram of cellulose and in the case of “GPM” poultices it dropped to 1,9. However, in both cases some variation was allowed, although “GPM” had a great advantage due to its higher adhesiveness (with the same or less water percentage). The working speed was clearly favorable to the “GPM” (55 cm / sec versus 7 cm / sec in the “handmade”). “GPM” poultice had the additional advantage of being able to regulate the amount of water at will during the application process. C) Data regarding total porosity and density of the poultices, although approximate, were very relevant, because they allowed us to get an idea of the petrophysical behavior and to better explain the phenomena described in this paper. Thus, "GPM" poultice was less dense and more porous, but with a much more constant and homogeneous porous system than that of the “handmade” one. In regards to the capacity of infiltration / suction coefficient, there was no doubtof the greater capacity of “GPM” poultices, which was twice that of the “handmade” ones. D) Regarding the penetration of the consolidants, the amount of consolidant that penetrated was slightly higher if the process was controlled by “GPM” poultice. The difference, without being very large, seemed significant since it was graded by the pore size of the substrate. The biggest difference (in favor of the “GPM”) could be seen with stone from Calatorao (pore size 0.01 micron), then wood (0.2 micron) and finally Campanil limestone (pore size 1 micron). In sandstone from Uncastillo, that presented an average pore size of the order of 30 microns, more consolidant penetrated when using the “handmade” poultice; the apparent contradiction in the case of epoxy resin is not such if we consider that the difference is produced because the substrate under the "GPM" is 8% more porous than the one beneath the “handmade”, as it was deduced from the calculations made through digital image processing (fig 4). However, the greater homogeneity of penetration seemed to be a relevant result, provided that this variable did not depend on the total porosity. This seemed to indicate that the orientation of the fibers in the “GPM” leaded the intrusion of the consolidant into the smaller pores and that when the pores were greater than 15 microns, the process was no longer effective and the size of the conduit became the most relevantfactor. If we add the results in the modification of the suction coefficient to the above-mentioned data, we can observe a complex interaction between the type of consolidant, its viscosity, its contact angle with the material that has to penetrate, pore size in the substrate, orientation of thesubstrate (anisotropy depending on the stratification plane) and type of poultice. This situation complicates the data and its interpretation. However, taking into consideration that the modification of the suction coefficient is similar in both types of poultices and that the amount of consolidant that penetrates with the “GPM” poultice is higher, we can conclude that the homogeneity in the distribution of the product is better in the case of the “GPM” ones since a greater incorporation of product to the substrate increases the possibility of "plugging" the porous system, and this effect does not occur. The textural analysis of how the epoxy resin penetrates (fig 4) also points in this same direction. E) Regarding original colors, the darkness of the poultice over that of the pulp of paper that had not been applied is likely due to the fact that the manipulation deforms the fibers and incorporatesdirt and salts impurities. The presence of small amounts of moisture after a gentle drying wouldact in the same way. F) Regarding the ease of cleaning, it must be first clarified that, in the comparison of color by subtraction between the three moments of measurement, the results that were considered "theoretically impossible" (negative values in C2-C1 and C3-C1 and positive values for C3-C2) are possible in practice for two reasons: 1) Experimental error. 2) The variability in surface color caused by not measuring exactly in the same place. The analysis of the physical behavior of each poultice, after drying, indicated that in the “handmade” poultice the fibers were more locked together and formed a more solid, dense and coherent aggregate than in the “GPM” ones, observation that was in accordance with the manufacturing method and the petrophysical data of both (fig 3 and 4, table 3). These © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue II Version I 14 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 C Poultices Generated Mechanically with Compressed Air: “Gunpoint Mix System” Characterization and Properties. Comparison with “Handmade” Poultices