Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [MedievalSawdust] quality of wood

Expand Messages
  • kjworz@comcast.net
    You are right. Split wood, aka Riven wood, is superior in strength and stability. The sawn version that most approximated this is called quartesawn and you
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      You are right. Split wood, aka Riven wood, is superior in strength and stability. The sawn version that most approximated this is called quartesawn and you can specify this type of cut when you purchase good wood. The stuff available at Home Depot is geared toward home construction and is fine for what it does, but it is not usually the best choice for what we do when we want to our best work.

      Their is disadvantages to riven wood. It is hard to get wide planks of it without having a million acres of virgin timber to choose from. It is inherently wasteful, and you end up with a lot of firewood.

      --
      -Chris Schwartz
      Silver Spring, MD

      -------------- Original message ----------------------
      From: "mahee of acre" <mahee_of_acre@...>
      > o.k. this may sound stupid, but...
      >
      > As I was driving down the road, building things in my head, I realized
      > that after I feld the tree that I split the wood along the grain. It
      > only took a bit of plaining to make it into the board I needed.
      >
      > Then poof reality hit me and I realized that any wood I might buy is
      > not split, but sawn and sanded.
      >
      > This in my strange little mind would make purchased boards weaker than
      > those feld and split because grain does not matter to the the saw.
      >
      > Is this an ah ha, or just a stupid thought?
      >
      > your servant,
      > mahee
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Bill McNutt
      It s not stupid at all, and, in fact, some authorities would agree with you without reservation. For myself, I m skeptical. What I am sure of is that rip-sawn
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment

        It’s not stupid at all, and, in fact, some authorities would agree with you without reservation.

         

        For myself, I’m skeptical.  What I am sure of is that rip-sawn timber is less STABLE that riven (split) timber or quarter sawn timber.

         

        The reason that most lumber is rip-sawn is that it’s cheap to do.  You can take a log and run it through a commercial bandsaw like salami through a deli-slicer.  There’s almost no labor cost AND you get to use about 80% of the log.

         

        Quarter sawn timber has to be re-positioned on the saw for each cut, and the labor costs go up about 500% (that last number is a guess).  Riven timber, on the other hand, throws away about 60% of the log.  (In my own limited experience.)

         

        Master Will

         


        From: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com [mailto: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of mahee of acre
        Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 9:58 PM
        To: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [MedievalSawdust] quality of wood

         

        o.k. this may sound stupid, but...

        As I was driving down the road, building things in my head, I realized
        that after I feld the tree that I split the wood along the grain. It
        only took a bit of plaining to make it into the board I needed.

        Then poof reality hit me and I realized that any wood I might buy is
        not split, but sawn and sanded.

        This in my strange little mind would make purchased boards weaker than
        those feld and split because grain does not matter to the the saw.

        Is this an ah ha, or just a stupid thought?

        your servant,
        mahee

      • Marit
        Correct. Split wood is also much more flexible. Hence it s use for making longships, etc. mahee of acre wrote: o.k. this may sound
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Correct.
           
          Split wood is also much more flexible.  Hence it's use for making longships, etc.

          mahee of acre <mahee_of_acre@...> wrote:
          o.k. this may sound stupid, but...

          As I was driving down the road, building things in my head, I realized
          that after I feld the tree that I split the wood along the grain. It
          only took a bit of plaining to make it into the board I needed.

          Then poof reality hit me and I realized that any wood I might buy is
          not split, but sawn and sanded.

          This in my strange little mind would make purchased boards weaker than
          those feld and split because grain does not matter to the the saw.

          Is this an ah ha, or just a stupid thought?

          your servant,
          mahee


          Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

        • Nicholas Russon
          The reason that most lumber is rip-sawn is that it’s cheap to do. You can take a log and run it through a commercial bandsaw like salami through a
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            The reason that most lumber is rip-sawn is that it’s cheap to do.  You can take a log and run it through a commercial bandsaw like salami through a deli-slicer.  There’s almost no labor cost AND you get to use about 80% of the log.
             
            Quarter sawn timber has to be re-positioned on the saw for each cut, and the labor costs go up about 500% (that last number is a guess).  Riven timber, on the other hand, throws away about 60% of the log.  (In my own limited experience.)
            Actually, I had the opportunity to have dinner my boss on my last trip to her office (in the southern US), and afterwards, we visited her husband's design shop. He designs and builds precision laser measurement and control devices for lumber mills. Any mill larger than your local Wood-Mizer owner may already have automated equipment which allows them to do all sorts of amazing things with logs. The log is measured every (mumble) of a millimeter and the cutting is optimized to get the very most possible useful lumber from every log.
            For any mill using equipment like this (it's expensive stuff, but makes a huge difference in the amount of wasted wood), there's almost no difference in labour costs between doing flatsawn and quartersawn wood. There is still more waste from quartersawn, so it'll still be more economical for mills to produce flatsawn wood over quartersawn wood, but the cost differences will be much lower than for  mills which don't use this equipment.
            Regards,
            Nicholas
            Ealdormere (Ontario, Canada)


            Nicholas Russon
            nrusson@... or nicholas.russon@...

            Weblog at http://www.bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness
            Quotes site at http://www.quotulatiousness.ca
          • Bill McNutt
            Anybody think there s the remotest chance on this side of the river Styx of the savings in labor cost being passed on to the consumer with an industry that let
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment

              Anybody think there’s the remotest chance on this side of the river Styx of the savings in labor cost being passed on to the consumer with an industry that let tens of thousands of acres of hardwoods blown down by Mt. St. Helens ROT rather than processes it and reduce the price of hardwood?

               

              Will the Bitter Cynic

               


              For any mill using equipment like this (it's expensive stuff, but makes a huge difference in the amount of wasted wood), there's almost no difference in labour costs between doing flatsawn and quartersawn wood. There is still more waste from quartersawn, so it'll still be more economical for mills to produce flatsawn wood over quartersawn wood, but the cost differences will be much lower than for  mills which don't use this equipment.

            • AlbionWood
              Hardwoods, blown down by Mt. St. Helens? Pretty sure that was mostly pine & fir. And IIRC there were some pretty good reasons not to go in and liquidate all
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hardwoods, blown down by Mt. St. Helens? Pretty sure that was mostly
                pine & fir. And IIRC there were some pretty good reasons not to go in
                and liquidate all that standing dead timber, though there was also a lot
                of argument about it.

                Still, point taken - the (US) industry is not particularly interested in
                low prices. The sordid business with Canada (over softwood prices) is
                proof enough, if anybody doubted it.

                What those fancy computer-optimized, laser-guided mills do is get
                (barely) usable lumber from smaller-diameter logs. You should see the
                pecker-poles filling trucks out here right now... some of them they
                might get a few 2x4s out of, but they are still worth cutting & hauling.
                That means a shorter cut cycle, maybe 35-40 years instead of 45-50. That
                means more revenue. It's not a forest, it's a crop, and the sooner you
                get it to market the better.

                Timber companies are selling land like crazy. Wonder what that means?

                Colin
                Another Bitter Cynic

                Bill McNutt wrote:
                >
                > Anybody think there’s the remotest chance on this side of the river
                > Styx of the savings in labor cost being passed on to the consumer with
                > an industry that let tens of thousands of acres of hardwoods blown
                > down by Mt. St. Helens ROT rather than processes it and reduce the
                > price of hardwood?
                >
                > Will the Bitter Cynic
                >
              • Ralph Lindberg
                ... Styx of ... industry ... Collin is correct in that there was little hardwood. Most of the wood was Doug Fir, Hemlock and Western Red Cedar. Although, there
                Message 7 of 13 , Aug 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, "Bill McNutt" <mcnutt@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Anybody think there's the remotest chance on this side of the river
                  Styx of
                  > the savings in labor cost being passed on to the consumer with an
                  industry
                  > that let tens of thousands of acres of hardwoods blown down by Mt. St.
                  > Helens ROT rather than processes it and reduce the price of hardwood?
                  >
                  Collin is correct in that there was little hardwood. Most of the
                  wood was Doug Fir, Hemlock and Western Red Cedar. Although, there was
                  some bottom land with Big Leaf Maple and Red Alder also.
                  But as to the rest, bunkem. All of the land owned by the timber co's
                  (mostly Weyerhaeuser) was harvested for the blow-down. I watched truck
                  after truck come out of the blow-down area. Then I watched as they
                  replanted the land (most of the blow-down area was privately owned).
                  Now, if you are talking about the blast-zone, ie the area right
                  below the mountain, out towards Spirit Lake. That wood was never
                  recovered. Much of it was buried under a few hundred feet of dirt.
                  Some of the rest was blown unto the "new" Spirit Lake, were it was
                  left to rot (it also formed one of the richest lakes in marine life,
                  completely lacking in fish to eat any of it). But then this part of
                  the land is now inside the National Monument.

                  In point of fact, the Tacoma Dome roof is Mt Saint Helen's
                  blow-down. All of that was Douglas Fir and Hemlock. The Red Cedar has
                  always been to valuable to toss. The alder was probably all left to
                  rot, although I'll bet the Big Leaf Maple was selectively harvested
                  (just like it is now, at up to $600/bd-ft for the best quilted Maple,
                  they ain't gona waste that)

                  I've been skiing, hiking, and camping in that land for many years.
                  In fact I was there last week.

                  To return to some semblance of SCA, the major eruption happened on
                  AnTir's May Coronet Tourney (we were still a Principality then). Only
                  I skipped it, as I was building my house that year.

                  TTFN
                  Ralg
                  AnTir
                • Ralph Lindberg
                  ... hauling. ... That ... In the 1980 s and 90 s; Plum Creek Lumber (the timber arm of Burlington Northern rail) published in their circular to stock holders
                  Message 8 of 13 , Aug 3, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, AlbionWood <albionwood@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > ...
                    >
                    > What those fancy computer-optimized, laser-guided mills do is get
                    > (barely) usable lumber from smaller-diameter logs. You should see the
                    > pecker-poles filling trucks out here right now... some of them they
                    > might get a few 2x4s out of, but they are still worth cutting &
                    hauling.
                    > That means a shorter cut cycle, maybe 35-40 years instead of 45-50.
                    That
                    > means more revenue. It's not a forest, it's a crop, and the sooner you
                    > get it to market the better.
                    >
                    In the 1980's and 90's; Plum Creek Lumber (the timber arm of
                    Burlington Northern rail) published in their circular to stock holders
                    that they were "getting along" in their harvests, by cutting at 3 to 4
                    times sustained yield. Which means that in "X" number of years, they
                    will have no lumber to harvest.

                    > Timber companies are selling land like crazy. Wonder what that means?
                    >
                    That their land has more value in homes then in lumber.

                    Interesting, Weyerhaeuser has an interesting solution to this issue.
                    They are selling large lots (5 to 20 acre) of their timber land
                    near(er) major towns to people that want to put large trophy homes on.
                    Only, Weyerhauser is retaining the timber rights.

                    To return this to SCA, my barony (Dragons Laire), hosts many of
                    it's larger events in a "company town" (Port Gamble WA), ie one owned
                    outright by a timber company (Pope and Talbert). They are actually
                    much easier to deal with then most government agencies.

                    TTFN
                    Ralg
                    AnTir
                  • AlbionWood
                    Ralg, Thanks for setting us straight about that. I only remember a lot of hand-wringing over the issue at the time, and there seems to be a persistent myth
                    Message 9 of 13 , Aug 3, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ralg,

                      Thanks for setting us straight about that. I only remember a lot of
                      hand-wringing over the issue at the time, and there seems to be a
                      persistent myth that the Libruls made everybody leave that timber to rot.

                      Cheers,
                      Colin
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.