Well you learn something everyday and I sure learned something interesting
awhile ago. Seems that the terms hardwood and softwood have nothing to do
with the "hardness" of the wood!

From the link below...

"The terms softwood and hardwood are used to reference the taxonomical
division that separates a species and have little to do with the actual
hardness of the wood."

"Hardwood trees have broad leaves and are deciduous - they lose their leaves
at the end of the growing season. Hardwoods are angiosperms - using flowers
to pollinate for seed reproduction. Oaks, maples, birches and fruit trees
are examples of hardwood trees."

"Softwood trees are conifers (evergreens), have needles or scale-like
foliage and are not deciduous. Softwoods are gymnosperms, meaning they do
not have flowers and use cones for seed reproduction. Examples of softwoods
include pines, spruces, firs and hemlocks."

Wood Identification for Hardwood and Softwood Species...
http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/PB1692.pdf

Commercially available softwood may be mostly conifers, but there are plenty
of softwoods that are not conifers.
Take the magnolia for example. It's so soft that you couldn't build ANYthing
with it.
And hardwoods are definitely harder than softwoods. Just cut any hardwood
with a handsaw and you'll see it takes longer than cutting any softwood.
The truth I have discovered is that softwoods grow faster and less dense and
hardwoods grow slower and denser, and thus the hardness and softness.
-BAM


"Bill" wrote in message
...
Well you learn something everyday and I sure learned something interesting
awhile ago. Seems that the terms hardwood and softwood have nothing to do
with the "hardness" of the wood!

From the link below...

"The terms softwood and hardwood are used to reference the taxonomical
division that separates a species and have little to do with the actual
hardness of the wood."

"Hardwood trees have broad leaves and are deciduous - they lose their
leaves at the end of the growing season. Hardwoods are angiosperms - using
flowers to pollinate for seed reproduction. Oaks, maples, birches and
fruit trees are examples of hardwood trees."

"Softwood trees are conifers (evergreens), have needles or scale-like
foliage and are not deciduous. Softwoods are gymnosperms, meaning they do
not have flowers and use cones for seed reproduction. Examples of
softwoods include pines, spruces, firs and hemlocks."

Wood Identification for Hardwood and Softwood Species...
http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/PB1692.pdf

"Em" wrote in message
om...
Commercially available softwood may be mostly conifers, but there are
plenty of softwoods that are not conifers.
Take the magnolia for example. It's so soft that you couldn't build
ANYthing with it.

Magnolia is a hardwood. I think you missed the point of the post.

In article ,
says...

BAM please reread the OP.

And hardwoods are definitely harder than softwoods. Just cut any hardwood
with a handsaw and you'll see it takes longer than cutting any softwood.

WRONG. Balsa is classified as a hardwood and is very soft, easy to
cut and light.


The truth I have discovered is that softwoods grow faster and less dense and
hardwoods grow slower and denser.

WRONG. Balsa is classified as a hardwood. In 6 to 10 years it can
grow up to 90 feet tall and 45 inches in diameter.

http://www.mat.uc.pt/~pedro/ncientif...s/techbal.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balsa_wood

"MikeP" wrote in message

...Balsa is classified as a hardwood and is very soft, easy to
cut and light...


OK, now I'm REALLY learning something today! This is getting interesting...

In article . net,
(MikeP) says...

WRONG. Balsa is classified as a hardwood and is very soft, easy to
cut and light.

Poplar is a hardwood too.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

"Em" wrote in message
om...
And hardwoods are definitely harder than softwoods. Just cut any
hardwood
with a handsaw and you'll see it takes longer than cutting any softwood.
The truth I have discovered is that softwoods grow faster and less dense
and hardwoods grow slower and denser, and thus the hardness and softness.
-BAM

Better study up on just what a hardwood and softwood are Em. There are
plenty of softwoods that are harder than hardwoods and vice versa. Take
Southern Yellow Pine for instance....softwood but is pretty darned hard.
Likewise, balsa wood is a hardwood....hmmm, that's pretty easy to cut
actually. The distinction has nothing to do with the wood's actual
hardness but as the OP quoted, with the way the tree grows (conifer,
deciduous, etc...).
Cheers,
cc

"Em" wrote in message
om...
And hardwoods are definitely harder than softwoods. Just cut any
hardwood
with a handsaw and you'll see it takes longer than cutting any softwood.
The truth I have discovered is that softwoods grow faster and less dense
and hardwoods grow slower and denser, and thus the hardness and softness.
-BAM

Better study up on just what a hardwood and softwood are Em. There are
plenty of softwoods that are harder than hardwoods and vice versa. Take
Southern Yellow Pine for instance....softwood but is pretty darned hard.
Likewise, balsa wood is a hardwood....hmmm, that's pretty easy to cut
actually. The distinction has nothing to do with the wood's actual
hardness but as the OP quoted, with the way the tree grows (conifer,
deciduous, etc...).
Cheers,
cc

All you need to know is that hardwoods are better to burn in your
woodstove. I don't burn softwoods at all, just let them rot when they
fall...




James "Cubby" Culbertson wrote:
"Em" wrote in message
om...

And hardwoods are definitely harder than softwoods. Just cut any
hardwood

with a handsaw and you'll see it takes longer than cutting any softwood.
The truth I have discovered is that softwoods grow faster and less dense
and hardwoods grow slower and denser, and thus the hardness and softness.
-BAM


Better study up on just what a hardwood and softwood are Em. There are
plenty of softwoods that are harder than hardwoods and vice versa. Take
Southern Yellow Pine for instance....softwood but is pretty darned hard.
Likewise, balsa wood is a hardwood....hmmm, that's pretty easy to cut
actually. The distinction has nothing to do with the wood's actual
hardness but as the OP quoted, with the way the tree grows (conifer,
deciduous, etc...).
Cheers,
cc

If your hardwood is not hard, I suggest you get some viagra !!!
Take a couple pills and your woody will get real hard...


On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 04:44:49 GMT, Rob wrote:

All you need to know is that hardwoods are better to burn in your
woodstove. I don't burn softwoods at all, just let them rot when they
fall...




James "Cubby" Culbertson wrote:
"Em" wrote in message
om...

And hardwoods are definitely harder than softwoods. Just cut any
hardwood

with a handsaw and you'll see it takes longer than cutting any softwood.
The truth I have discovered is that softwoods grow faster and less dense
and hardwoods grow slower and denser, and thus the hardness and softness.
-BAM


Better study up on just what a hardwood and softwood are Em. There are
plenty of softwoods that are harder than hardwoods and vice versa. Take
Southern Yellow Pine for instance....softwood but is pretty darned hard.
Likewise, balsa wood is a hardwood....hmmm, that's pretty easy to cut
actually. The distinction has nothing to do with the wood's actual
hardness but as the OP quoted, with the way the tree grows (conifer,
deciduous, etc...).
Cheers,
cc

"Rob" wrote in message

All you need to know is that hardwoods are better to burn in your
woodstove. I don't burn softwoods at all, just let them rot when they
fall...


Well now we are getting to the crux of the matter here, and the main reason
I was learning about this to begin with...

For burning wood in a woodstove, I have read that "hardwoods" are better
(seasoned of course). Now with my new understanding that there can be "hard"
or dense "hardwoods" or soft (not dense) hardwoods and hard or soft
softwoods...

-Is it correct to say that it is best to use a seasoned "hard" or "dense"
hardwood *or* a seasoned "hard" or "dense" softwood for burning in a
woodstove?

-Or is it correct to say that it is best to use a seasoned "hardwood" in a
woodstove be it hard (dense) or soft (not dense), and not a "softwood"?

-Or is it correct to say that it is best to use a seasoned "hardwood" in a
woodstove that is hard (dense), but not a soft (not dense) hardwood, and not
a softwood?

Bill wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message

All you need to know is that hardwoods are better to burn in your
woodstove. I don't burn softwoods at all, just let them rot when they
fall...



Well now we are getting to the crux of the matter here, and the main reason
I was learning about this to begin with...

For burning wood in a woodstove, I have read that "hardwoods" are better
(seasoned of course). Now with my new understanding that there can be "hard"
or dense "hardwoods" or soft (not dense) hardwoods and hard or soft
softwoods...

-Is it correct to say that it is best to use a seasoned "hard" or "dense"
hardwood *or* a seasoned "hard" or "dense" softwood for burning in a
woodstove?

-Or is it correct to say that it is best to use a seasoned "hardwood" in a
woodstove be it hard (dense) or soft (not dense), and not a "softwood"?

-Or is it correct to say that it is best to use a seasoned "hardwood" in a
woodstove that is hard (dense), but not a soft (not dense) hardwood, and not
a softwood?



I burn a lot of wood, but I don't claim to be a universal expert on wood
burning. Where I live the forests are 95%+ hardwoods and hardwoods are
known by us in this region to be the better trees to burn largely
because they do not create the creosote that softwoods do. I know people
on this board who live in regions where the forests are primarily
softwoods will say that they do fine burning softwoods.

The native and/or common softwoods we have here in Pennsylvania such as
Hemlock, various pines, Juniper (comnmonly called cedar here), or
varieties of spruce or firs planted by people, and others are never
burned in a woodstove or fireplace by anyone I know.

The woods I have in my woods, shown in my preference for burning are as
follows:

1) Oak of any type
2) Ash (not as high BTUs as oak, but a good burner and easy to split)
3) Sassafras (burns nice and warm in a stove, not great for a fireplace
because it will send burning embers across the room)
4) Maple of any type
5) Various other less used species such as Hickory, Aspen, and others

I almost never burn some "softer" hardwoods such as sweet gum, willow of
any variety or poplar.

Here is a very handy website I came across when I was looking into
getting wood for my woodstove. It has a chart with many woods and how
good they are for a fire.

http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/forestry/g881.htm

Regards,

Gideon

In article , "Bill" wrote:

Well now we are getting to the crux of the matter here, and the main reason
I was learning about this to begin with...

For burning wood in a woodstove, I have read that "hardwoods" are better
(seasoned of course). Now with my new understanding that there can be "hard"
or dense "hardwoods" or soft (not dense) hardwoods and hard or soft
softwoods...

-Is it correct to say that it is best to use a seasoned "hard" or "dense"
hardwood *or* a seasoned "hard" or "dense" softwood for burning in a
woodstove?

No. Softwoods should not be burned in a fireplace or woodstove if hardwoods
are available to you. Most softwoods contain resins that cause creosote
buildup in the chimney or flue, which increases the risk of chimney fires. If
you must burn softwoods, make sure to have your chimney cleaned frequently.
Please note that some hardwoods, notably beech, *also* present this risk.

-Or is it correct to say that it is best to use a seasoned "hardwood" in a
woodstove be it hard (dense) or soft (not dense), and not a "softwood"?

Yes.

-Or is it correct to say that it is best to use a seasoned "hardwood" in a
woodstove that is hard (dense), but not a soft (not dense) hardwood, and not
a softwood?

Well, that too. The denser the wood, the higher its fuel value in a given
volume. A hundred pounds of wood has the same fuel value, whether it's a
hundred pounds of hickory or yellow-poplar. Of course, the latter is a much
larger pile than the former, and you'll have to stoke your stove much more
often. Also, the denser hardwoods (hickory, white oak, sugar maple) tend to
burn to coals, while most of the less-dense hardwoods (poplar, sycamore,
silver maple) burn to ashes. Coals make a longer-lasting, hotter fire.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Bill wrote:

For burning wood in a woodstove, I have read that "hardwoods" are better
(seasoned of course).

The best rule of thumb is "the more a cubic foot of it weighs when
completely dry, the better it is for firewood".

If you are burning round sticks, the ones with the tightest growth rings
last longest, all else equal.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 04:25:14 GMT, "Em" wrote:

-snip-
And hardwoods are definitely harder than softwoods. Just cut any hardwood
with a handsaw and you'll see it takes longer than cutting any softwood.
-snip-

Go to your local borg and pick up a piece of poplar from the hardwood
section. Repeat with some yellow pine in the softwoods. You'll
find the yellow pine much harder.

Re-read the original post.

Jim

In misc.rural Jim Elbrecht wrote:

: Go to your local borg and pick up a piece of poplar from the hardwood
: section. Repeat with some yellow pine in the softwoods. You'll
: find the yellow pine much harder.

: Re-read the original post.

Does anyone know what the hardest softwood is? The softest hardwood?

In article , wrote:

Does anyone know what the hardest softwood is? The softest hardwood?

The softest hardwood has gotta be balsa. Dunno about the hardest softwood...
longleaf pine is certainly one of the hardest in North America, but I wouldn't
be surprised if there are some tropical gymnosperms that are much harder.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote in message

Does anyone know what the hardest softwood is?


How about Pacific Yew? I have a friend who has his barn poles made from
this wood. I was trying to drive nails into this stuff and every single nail
bent. This is the wood which got me interested in this topic to begin with.

Pacific Yew...
http://www.thenakedplank.com/Yew-pacific.html

Softwoods of North America...
(Yew - acrobat page121, document page 117)
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr102.pdf

In article ,
(Bill) says...
wrote in message

Does anyone know what the hardest softwood is?


How about Pacific Yew? I have a friend who has his barn poles made from
this wood. I was trying to drive nails into this stuff and every single nail
bent. This is the wood which got me interested in this topic to begin with.

Pacific Yew...
http://www.thenakedplank.com/Yew-pacific.html

That would get my vote. The stuff is not only so hard it is difficult
to work, but it is also incredibly tough. Makes good bows. If you
shape the bow so there is sapwood on the outside and heartwood on the
inside, it will give you a natural compound bow.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

In article , "Em" wrote:
Commercially available softwood may be mostly conifers, but there are plenty
of softwoods that are not conifers.

Name one.

Take the magnolia for example. It's so soft that you couldn't build ANYthing
with it.

Botanically speaking, magnolia is a hardwood.

And hardwoods are definitely harder than softwoods. Just cut any hardwood
with a handsaw and you'll see it takes longer than cutting any softwood.

Botanically speaking, balsa is a hardwood, and southern yellow pine is a
softwood.

Methinks you need to go back and read what the OP wrote. *Much* more
carefully this time.

The truth I have discovered is that softwoods grow faster and less dense and
hardwoods grow slower and denser, and thus the hardness and softness.

You are confusing "softwood" with "soft wood", and "hardwood" with "hard
wood". Not the same at all, as the OP's post makes abundantly clear.

-BAM


"Bill" wrote in message
...
Well you learn something everyday and I sure learned something interesting
awhile ago. Seems that the terms hardwood and softwood have nothing to do
with the "hardness" of the wood!

From the link below...

"The terms softwood and hardwood are used to reference the taxonomical
division that separates a species and have little to do with the actual
hardness of the wood."

"Hardwood trees have broad leaves and are deciduous - they lose their
leaves at the end of the growing season. Hardwoods are angiosperms - using
flowers to pollinate for seed reproduction. Oaks, maples, birches and
fruit trees are examples of hardwood trees."

"Softwood trees are conifers (evergreens), have needles or scale-like
foliage and are not deciduous. Softwoods are gymnosperms, meaning they do
not have flowers and use cones for seed reproduction. Examples of
softwoods include pines, spruces, firs and hemlocks."

Wood Identification for Hardwood and Softwood Species...
http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/PB1692.pdf





--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Em" wrote:

Commercially available softwood may be mostly conifers, but there are plenty
of softwoods that are not conifers.


Name one.


Take the magnolia for example. It's so soft that you couldn't build ANYthing
with it.


Botanically speaking, magnolia is a hardwood.

Not really. Hardwood and softwood are not
botanical classifications.


Botanically speaking, balsa is a hardwood, and southern yellow pine is a
softwood.
Same problem, has nothing to do with botanical
classifications.

In article , "George E. Cawthon" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Em"
wrote:

Commercially available softwood may be mostly conifers, but there are plenty
of softwoods that are not conifers.


Name one.


Take the magnolia for example. It's so soft that you couldn't build ANYthing
with it.


Botanically speaking, magnolia is a hardwood.

Not really. Hardwood and softwood are not
botanical classifications.

Picky, picky, picky. "Hardwood" and "softwood" are lumber industry terms that
are exactly synonymous with the botanical terms "angiosperm" and "gymnosperm"
respectively. Happy now?


Botanically speaking, balsa is a hardwood, and southern yellow pine is a
softwood.
Same problem, has nothing to do with botanical
classifications.

Same answer. Were you born this pedantic, or did you train?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Em" wrote:
Take the magnolia for example. It's so soft that you couldn't build ANYthing
with it.

Bzzt! Thanks for playing. Magnolia is harder than yellow poplar.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Em wrote:
Commercially available softwood may be mostly conifers, but there are plenty
of softwoods that are not conifers.
Take the magnolia for example. It's so soft that you couldn't build ANYthing
with it.
And hardwoods are definitely harder than softwoods. Just cut any hardwood
with a handsaw and you'll see it takes longer than cutting any softwood.
The truth I have discovered is that softwoods grow faster and less dense and
hardwoods grow slower and denser, and thus the hardness and softness.
-BAM

Balsa is a hardwood. Most softwoods are easier to cut tham Balsa.

Bunya Pine is a softwood. It is insanely hard.

As the OP said, it is a taxonomic division (although his source is
wrong, many Hardwoods are evergreen)

....Brock.

Brock Ulfsen wrote:
Em wrote:

Commercially available softwood may be mostly conifers, but there are
plenty of softwoods that are not conifers.
Take the magnolia for example. It's so soft that you couldn't build
ANYthing with it.
And hardwoods are definitely harder than softwoods. Just cut any
hardwood with a handsaw and you'll see it takes longer than cutting
any softwood.
The truth I have discovered is that softwoods grow faster and less
dense and hardwoods grow slower and denser, and thus the hardness and
softness.
-BAM


Balsa is a hardwood. Most softwoods are easier to cut tham Balsa.

Bunya Pine is a softwood. It is insanely hard.

As the OP said, it is a taxonomic division (although his source is
wrong, many Hardwoods are evergreen)

...Brock.

The confusion is caused by people mixing two
different classifications. There are botanical
(scientific) classifications as
well as commercial and other classifications. The
situation is similar to tree names where you need
to know the scientific name to be sure of what
another person is talking about because, trees
also have common names, commercial names, etc.

Most importantly, there is no taxonomic division
or classification of hardwoods and softwoods.
Those terms are primarily commercial, logging, and
building trades terms based on the hardness of the
wood. To further complicate, sources try to
simplify the definition by equating hardwood and
softwoods to some botanical classification. But,
they don't fit any botanical classification very
well and that is the source of the confusion.

In article , "George E. Cawthon" wrote:

Most importantly, there is no taxonomic division
or classification of hardwoods and softwoods.

Not correct.

Those terms are primarily commercial, logging, and
building trades terms based on the hardness of the
wood.

That is simply false. Longleaf pine, for example, is considerably harder than
yellow poplar; however, the former is classified as a softwood by the lumber
industry, and the latter as a hardwood.

The lumber industry distinction between hardwood and softwood is based
*loosely* on the fact that most hardwood trees are harder than most softwood
trees -- but, as noted above, that is not always the case.


To further complicate, sources try to
simplify the definition by equating hardwood and
softwoods to some botanical classification. But,
they don't fit any botanical classification very
well and that is the source of the confusion.

The confusion is entirely on your part, sir. "Hardwood" and "softwood" are
exactly synonymous with "angiosperm" and "gymnosperm" respectively. If you
disagree, it's up to you to provide counterexamples.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "George E. Cawthon" wrote:

Most importantly, there is no taxonomic division
or classification of hardwoods and softwoods.

Not correct.

Those terms are primarily commercial, logging, and
building trades terms based on the hardness of the
wood.

That is simply false. Longleaf pine, for example, is considerably harder than
yellow poplar; however, the former is classified as a softwood by the lumber
industry, and the latter as a hardwood.

The lumber industry distinction between hardwood and softwood is based
*loosely* on the fact that most hardwood trees are harder than most softwood
trees -- but, as noted above, that is not always the case.


To further complicate, sources try to
simplify the definition by equating hardwood and
softwoods to some botanical classification. But,
they don't fit any botanical classification very
well and that is the source of the confusion.

The confusion is entirely on your part, sir. "Hardwood" and "softwood" are
exactly synonymous with "angiosperm" and "gymnosperm" respectively. If you
disagree, it's up to you to provide counterexamples.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Exactly. That is the way I was taught back in a HS science class.

Harry K

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "George E. Cawthon" wrote:


Most importantly, there is no taxonomic division
or classification of hardwoods and softwoods.


Not correct.

Take some botany classes or just take one--taxonomy.


Those terms are primarily commercial, logging, and
building trades terms based on the hardness of the
wood.


That is simply false. Longleaf pine, for example, is considerably harder than
yellow poplar; however, the former is classified as a softwood by the lumber
industry, and the latter as a hardwood.

Well at least you agree it is an industry
classification. If it isn't generally based on
the hardness of the wood, I wonder why the two
categories are "softwood" and "hardwood."

The lumber industry distinction between hardwood and softwood is based
*loosely* on the fact that most hardwood trees are harder than most softwood
trees -- but, as noted above, that is not always the case.

You are right, it is loose, so loose than the
wheel fell off.




To further complicate, sources try to
simplify the definition by equating hardwood and
softwoods to some botanical classification. But,
they don't fit any botanical classification very
well and that is the source of the confusion.


The confusion is entirely on your part, sir. "Hardwood" and "softwood" are
exactly synonymous with "angiosperm" and "gymnosperm" respectively. If you
disagree, it's up to you to provide counterexamples.

I'm confused? I know exactly what the terms
angiosperm and gymnosperm mean. And if I didn't,
I could go to any botany book and find the
definition.

If the industry equates angiosperm and gymnosperm
to hardwood and softwood, why don't they just say
angiosperm and gymnosperm and be correct? You
already gave examples of gymnosperms that are
harder than angiosperms.

My point is that defining hardwood/softwood that
way is useless, senseless, irresponsible, and
confusing. The fact that this thread is so long
confirms that.

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Well you learn something everyday and I sure learned something interesting
awhile ago. Seems that the terms hardwood and softwood have nothing to do
with the "hardness" of the wood!

From the link below...

"The terms softwood and hardwood are used to reference the taxonomical
division that separates a species and have little to do with the actual
hardness of the wood."

"Hardwood trees have broad leaves and are deciduous - they lose their
leaves
at the end of the growing season. Hardwoods are angiosperms - using
flowers
to pollinate for seed reproduction. Oaks, maples, birches and fruit trees
are examples of hardwood trees."

"Softwood trees are conifers (evergreens), have needles or scale-like
foliage and are not deciduous. Softwoods are gymnosperms, meaning they do
not have flowers and use cones for seed reproduction. Examples of
softwoods
include pines, spruces, firs and hemlocks."

Wood Identification for Hardwood and Softwood Species...
http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/PB1692.pdf

Well, there are evergreen angisperms, azalea, rhododendron, holly, are they
hard or soft wood?
And there are deciduous gymnosperms, larch? are they hard or soft wood?
I'm not sure the Univ of Tenn is the defining authority here.

In article , "Chas Hurst" wrote:

Well, there are evergreen angisperms, azalea, rhododendron, holly, are they
hard or soft wood?

Being angiosperms, they're hardwoods.

And there are deciduous gymnosperms, larch? are they hard or soft wood?

Being gymnosperms, they're softwoods.

I'm not sure the Univ of Tenn is the defining authority here.

Perhaps not, but they agree completely with the source that *is* the defining
authority:

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fp.../fplgtr113.htm





--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Chas Hurst"
wrote:

Well, there are evergreen angisperms, azalea, rhododendron, holly, are
they
hard or soft wood?

Being angiosperms, they're hardwoods.

Say you, but the original article also included deciduous in the definition.
The above are not deciduous.

And there are deciduous gymnosperms, larch? are they hard or soft wood?

Being gymnosperms, they're softwoods.

Again, the original article included evergreen in it's definition of
softwood, yet there are gymnosperms that are deciduous.

An ambiguous definition isn't one.

In article , "Chas Hurst" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "Chas Hurst"
wrote:

Well, there are evergreen angisperms, azalea, rhododendron, holly, are
they
hard or soft wood?

Being angiosperms, they're hardwoods.

Say you, but the original article also included deciduous in the definition.
The above are not deciduous.

But, being angiosperms, they're hardwoods.

And there are deciduous gymnosperms, larch? are they hard or soft wood?

Being gymnosperms, they're softwoods.

Again, the original article included evergreen in it's definition of
softwood, yet there are gymnosperms that are deciduous.

Being gymnosperms, they're softwoods, whether they're deciduous or not.

An ambiguous definition isn't one.

The terms "hardwood" and "softwood" are exactly synonymous with "angiosperm"
and "gymnosperm" respectively.

The overwhelming majority of gymnosperms are evergreen, and the overwhelming
majority of temperate-zone angiosperms are deciduous.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Again, the original article included evergreen in it's definition of
softwood, yet there are gymnosperms that are deciduous.

An ambiguous definition isn't one.

The Forest Products Laboratory publishes the Wood Handbook, which is usually
regarded as the authority on wood and wood-base products. (Not the sole
authority, but neither is it contested.)

Under Hardwoods & softwoods:

"Trees are divided into two broad classes, usually referred to as hardwoods
and softwoods. These names can be confusing since some softwoods are
actually harder than some hard-woods, and conversely some hardwoods are
softer than some softwoods. For example, softwoods such as longleaf pine and
Douglas-fir are typically harder than the hardwoods basswood and aspen.
Botanically, hardwoods are Angiosperms; the seeds are enclosed in the ovary
of the flower. Anatomically, hardwoods are porous; that is, they contain
vessel elements. A vessel element is a wood cell with open ends; when vessel
elements are set one above another, they form a continuous tube (vessel),
which serves as a conduit for transporting water or sap in the tree.
Typically, hardwoods are plants with broad leaves that, with few exceptions
in the temperate re-gion, lose their leaves in autumn or winter. Most
imported tropical woods are hardwoods. Botanically, softwoods are
Gymnosperms or conifers; the seeds are naked (not enclosed in the ovary of
the flower). Anatomically, softwoods are nonporous and do not contain
vessels. Softwoods are usually cone-bearing plants with needle- or
scale-like evergreen leaves. Some softwoods, such as larches and
baldcypress, lose their needles during autumn or winter. Major resources of
softwood species are spread across the United States, except for the Great
Plains where only small areas are forested. Softwood species are often
loosely grouped in three general regions, as shown in Table 1-1. Hardwoods
also occur in all parts of the United States, although most grow east of the
Great Plains. Hardwood species are shown by region in Table 1-2."

Live oak, some call them "evergreens" although they don't resemble any
conifer, drop their leaves not at the end of the growing season, but, at the
beginning of spring. Leaves are soon replaced in less than a week. If one
is not paying attention, one might think they never lose their leaves. Just
an addendum to the defintion provided by the original post.
They're hardwood if anyone is perplexed.
--
Lil' Dave
Beware the rule quoters, the corp mindset, the Borg
Else you will be absorbed
"Bill" wrote in message
...
Well you learn something everyday and I sure learned something interesting
awhile ago. Seems that the terms hardwood and softwood have nothing to do
with the "hardness" of the wood!

From the link below...

"The terms softwood and hardwood are used to reference the taxonomical
division that separates a species and have little to do with the actual
hardness of the wood."

"Hardwood trees have broad leaves and are deciduous - they lose their
leaves
at the end of the growing season. Hardwoods are angiosperms - using
flowers
to pollinate for seed reproduction. Oaks, maples, birches and fruit trees
are examples of hardwood trees."

"Softwood trees are conifers (evergreens), have needles or scale-like
foliage and are not deciduous. Softwoods are gymnosperms, meaning they do
not have flowers and use cones for seed reproduction. Examples of
softwoods
include pines, spruces, firs and hemlocks."

Wood Identification for Hardwood and Softwood Species...
http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/PB1692.pdf

Jim wrote:
Live oak, some call them "evergreens" although they don't resemble any
conifer, drop their leaves not at the end of the growing season, but, at the
beginning of spring. Leaves are soon replaced in less than a week. If one
is not paying attention, one might think they never lose their leaves. Just
an addendum to the defintion provided by the original post.
They're hardwood if anyone is perplexed.

If you've ever had one growing in your yard, you'll never think they don't
lose their leaves.

--
"It used to just be CIA agents with ear-pieces who walked round
with preoccupied, faraway expressions, and consequently regarded
all the little people as irrelevant scum."
Lynne Truss

"Bill" writes:

Well you learn something everyday and I sure learned something interesting
awhile ago. Seems that the terms hardwood and softwood have nothing to do
with the "hardness" of the wood!

From the link below...

"The terms softwood and hardwood are used to reference the taxonomical
division that separates a species and have little to do with the actual
hardness of the wood."

"Hardwood trees have broad leaves and are deciduous - they lose their leaves
at the end of the growing season. Hardwoods are angiosperms - using flowers
to pollinate for seed reproduction. Oaks, maples, birches and fruit trees
are examples of hardwood trees."

"Softwood trees are conifers (evergreens), have needles or scale-like
foliage and are not deciduous. Softwoods are gymnosperms, meaning they do
not have flowers and use cones for seed reproduction. Examples of softwoods
include pines, spruces, firs and hemlocks."

Wood Identification for Hardwood and Softwood Species...
http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/PB1692.pdf

Well, "when I use a word, it means precisely what I want it to mean".

At least one dictionary I found offers a 3rd definition:

[Macquarie]
Word: hardwood
Pron: ['hadwyd]
1 n. - Bot. any of the generally broadleaved, angiospermous trees
with sieve tubes for the conduction of nutrient solutions, most of
which have hard wood, as the eucalypts, but some of which have
soft wood, as the balsa.
2 -
the wood of such a tree.
3 -
(in popular use) any wood which is hard.

I thought this was a post about Lyle! Haven't seen hide nor hair of
him in a while. Wonder what he's up to...

R

Don't know... I sort of miss him in a strange kind of way......

S.


"RicodJour" wrote in message
oups.com...
I thought this was a post about Lyle! Haven't seen hide nor hair of
him in a while. Wonder what he's up to...

R

In article ,
(Bill) says...

"Softwood trees are conifers (evergreens), have needles or scale-like
foliage and are not deciduous. Softwoods are gymnosperms, meaning they do
not have flowers and use cones for seed reproduction. Examples of softwoods
include pines, spruces, firs and hemlocks."

I have my doubts about this article. One of my favorite flowers is the
sugar pine blossom, which is a great big flower about 5" in diameter
that blossoms in the early spring. Incense cedar is blossoming now, and
the scent of cedar blossoms is filling the air. The dawn redwood is
deciduous in cool climates, while madrone (arbutus menziesi) is a broad
leaf, flowering evergreen with deciduous bark.

Anyway, conifers definitely have blossoms. In some cases they are even
showy. The cone is just a seed case that appears after the blossom
fades.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc