Reaction Wood??? Andi??
Andi Wolfe wrote:
"In the northern hemisphere this is formed in the upper side of the limb in hardwoods and the lower side in soft woods. The reverse is true for trees in the southern hemisphere." Ken - I saw this statement in the book, also, and don't know quite what to make of it. Reaction wood is a descriptor for the larger spacing of growth rings on one side of the pith relative to the other on branches. There is a difference in how the wood reacts as it's drying, which explains the name. I'll have to dig into the literature to see if there is a difference among plant families in how the branches put on secondary growth. If the above statement is anecdotal in nature, it may just be referring to differences among plants that typically occur in one hemisphere vs the other. Andi http://www.AndiWolfe.com I've heard it called "tension wood" and "compression wood" which is a better descriptor than "reaction wood". If you think of growth rings as rubber bands the following makes sense. For a tree that is leaning off of vertical - the "uphill" side of each growth ring is in tension, stretched as it tries to bring the tree vertical, or at least prevent it from falling over farther. The growth ring on the "downhill" side of the tree isn't be stretched at all - but rather it's being compressed. Each behaves differently when cut, as in sawing a cross section into two halves. Here's an illustrated and annoted explanation that may help http://web.hypersurf.com/~charlie2/T...insawing3.html |
Reaction Wood??? Andi??
Charlie,
One thing that you may want to add to your wonderfully illustrated explanation: the branch cut parallel to the ground will yield bowls with more symmetric grain, which IMHO is much more desirable than a little bit bigger blank. Regards, Steve "charlieb" wrote in message ... Andi Wolfe wrote: "In the northern hemisphere this is formed in the upper side of the limb in hardwoods and the lower side in soft woods. The reverse is true for trees in the southern hemisphere." Ken - I saw this statement in the book, also, and don't know quite what to make of it. Reaction wood is a descriptor for the larger spacing of growth rings on one side of the pith relative to the other on branches. There is a difference in how the wood reacts as it's drying, which explains the name. I'll have to dig into the literature to see if there is a difference among plant families in how the branches put on secondary growth. If the above statement is anecdotal in nature, it may just be referring to differences among plants that typically occur in one hemisphere vs the other. Andi http://www.AndiWolfe.com I've heard it called "tension wood" and "compression wood" which is a better descriptor than "reaction wood". If you think of growth rings as rubber bands the following makes sense. For a tree that is leaning off of vertical - the "uphill" side of each growth ring is in tension, stretched as it tries to bring the tree vertical, or at least prevent it from falling over farther. The growth ring on the "downhill" side of the tree isn't be stretched at all - but rather it's being compressed. Each behaves differently when cut, as in sawing a cross section into two halves. Here's an illustrated and annoted explanation that may help http://web.hypersurf.com/~charlie2/T...insawing3.html |
Reaction Wood??? Andi??
C & S wrote:
Charlie, One thing that you may want to add to your wonderfully illustrated explanation: the branch cut parallel to the ground will yield bowls with more symmetric grain, which IMHO is much more desirable than a little bit bigger blank. Regards, Steve Steve: It's not clear to me what you mean by "the branch cut parallel to the ground will yield bowls with more symmetric grain" Look at Illustration A & B on the following page I earlier pointed to. http://web.hypersurf.com/~charlie2/T...insawing3.html In both cases, the log is cut into two "halves" - along the Pith Line, "A" leaving the same amount of tension and compression wood in each "half" while "B" leaves all of the tension wood in one "half" and all the compression wood in the other. One interpretation of the "parallel" part of your statement would be as shown on this temporary page I just put up for purposes of discussion. http://web.hypersurf.com/~charlie2/TemporaryStuff.html Rather than cutting along the pith line, this method would cut THROUGH the pith line at an angle - determined by a line parallel to the ground when the branch section was on the tree. Is that what you had in mind? If not, could you clarify a bit and I'll try and illustrate it. charlie b |
Reaction Wood??? Andi??
B-cut will yeild symmetric grain (blanks c and d).
A- will have the center of the grain *not* running through the center of the bowl (blanks a and b). regards, Steve "charlieb" wrote in message ... C & S wrote: Charlie, One thing that you may want to add to your wonderfully illustrated explanation: the branch cut parallel to the ground will yield bowls with more symmetric grain, which IMHO is much more desirable than a little bit bigger blank. Regards, Steve Steve: It's not clear to me what you mean by "the branch cut parallel to the ground will yield bowls with more symmetric grain" Look at Illustration A & B on the following page I earlier pointed to. http://web.hypersurf.com/~charlie2/T...insawing3.html In both cases, the log is cut into two "halves" - along the Pith Line, "A" leaving the same amount of tension and compression wood in each "half" while "B" leaves all of the tension wood in one "half" and all the compression wood in the other. One interpretation of the "parallel" part of your statement would be as shown on this temporary page I just put up for purposes of discussion. http://web.hypersurf.com/~charlie2/TemporaryStuff.html Rather than cutting along the pith line, this method would cut THROUGH the pith line at an angle - determined by a line parallel to the ground when the branch section was on the tree. Is that what you had in mind? If not, could you clarify a bit and I'll try and illustrate it. charlie b |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter