On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:05:33 -0500, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.

The water goes ... UP???
The water when it drains spins in the opposite direction. Toilers
designed for here would not flush properly there.

The line of demarcation is the equator.

On 1/8/2016 2:05 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.

The water goes ... UP???

No Greg - that's French toilets. They consider that their daily shower...

--
-Mike-

dpb wrote:
On 01/08/2016 1:49 PM, dpb wrote:
On 01/08/2016 10:56 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:43:01 -0600
wrote:

But, the possibility of a time span of "decades" between growth rings
of any of the common trees we in rec.woodworking would even know
existed and growing in NA or any similar temperate climate is
essentially zero.

would not consider sequoia to be common
it is the only hexaploid tree
it is the tallest tree

much prefer the dendrochronologist analysis over yours or
rec.woodworking
...

Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.

Or, more specifically, even a single paper that supports the claim of
"decades" (I'd even take several years) between growth rings of any
tree in any temperate climate.

--
From what I understand (probably from reading Hasluck's thick
compilation), even a single growth ring has a spring part and a winter
part. It's difficult to argue with that. Maybe the dispute here has to
go with what one calls a "growth ring". I believe I would say that the
trunk of a tree has growth rings even if they are invisible to the naked
eye. In fact, I would define them in terms of annual seasons.

Bill

On 01/09/2016 7:17 AM, Bill wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 01/08/2016 1:49 PM, dpb wrote:
On 01/08/2016 10:56 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:43:01 -0600
wrote:

But, the possibility of a time span of "decades" between growth rings
of any of the common trees we in rec.woodworking would even know
existed and growing in NA or any similar temperate climate is
essentially zero.

would not consider sequoia to be common
it is the only hexaploid tree
it is the tallest tree

much prefer the dendrochronologist analysis over yours or
rec.woodworking
...

Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.

Or, more specifically, even a single paper that supports the claim of
"decades" (I'd even take several years) between growth rings of any
tree in any temperate climate.

--
From what I understand (probably from reading Hasluck's thick
compilation), even a single growth ring has a spring part and a winter
part. It's difficult to argue with that. Maybe the dispute here has to
go with what one calls a "growth ring". I believe I would say that the
trunk of a tree has growth rings even if they are invisible to the naked
eye. In fact, I would define them in terms of annual seasons.
....

The dispute here is that I don't believe the claim that a single growth
ring can take "decades" to form is based on anything but I'd be most
interested to see how that could be if it were indeed, really so.

As noted in all recent literature, the term "annual rings" is considered
to be less than accurate owing to its reliance on temperate zone with
regular seasons to be so; the tropics of course being the extreme the
other direction. I was simply noting that owing to aberrations in
normal weather it's possible for there to be the occasional extra or
even a missed growth cycle in a given year even in normally very regular
seasonal areas and one could postulate severe climatic events that could
cause, perhaps, even more than a single year duration of such albeit
more and more unlikely as the time frame expands. To think there would
be such that lasted for a ten year span is simply expecting too much; or
if so, as noted above I'd surely like to see the specimen in which it
was found.

--

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:05:33 -0500, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.

The water goes ... UP???

Relatively, yes. ;-)

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 08:00:44 -0500, Mike Marlow
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 2:05 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.

The water goes ... UP???

No Greg - that's French toilets. They consider that their daily shower...

ROTFL! The first time I was in Paris, and I was using the commode, not
the "B" just to be clear, I flushed the commode, and the room I was in
was on the 5th floor, the water literally leapt out through the seat.
Not a pleasant experience.

On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 10:51:41 -0500, krw wrote:

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:05:33 -0500, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.

The water goes ... UP???

Relatively, yes. ;-)

VBG!

On 1/9/2016 2:11 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 08:00:44 -0500, Mike Marlow
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 2:05 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
On 1/6/2016 5:43 PM, OFWW wrote:
And then a North American heads to Australia and gets confused because
the toilet flushes opposite than it does here.

The water goes ... UP???

No Greg - that's French toilets. They consider that their daily shower...

ROTFL! The first time I was in Paris, and I was using the commode, not
the "B" just to be clear, I flushed the commode, and the room I was in
was on the 5th floor, the water literally leapt out through the seat.
Not a pleasant experience.


I had heard about French toilets long before my first trip to France,
but when I had my first encounter with them it still came as quite the
surprise. Not very fond of that idea at all...

--
-Mike-

Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.

All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.
San Francisco was rebuilt after the great fire in 1907.

I owned a number of acres of species of sempervirens up to 10 years ago.
We lived on the property and tended the trees. They are the biggest
weed in the world. Weed you say ? The seeds shower like snow after
a rain and the cones are about ripe. The trees force the cones open and
shower the area. Now you have trees growing in cracks and anything that
sits still. Forget gutters - they get filled. AND NO I DIDN'T CUT THEM
DOWN. I could have retired there If I cut one every few years or so.
I had three, maybe 4 subspecies of Coastals on my place. Some color and
some structure of the sub limbs on the long limbs.

I have seed from the Sempervirens I'm going to try to grow in my
greenhouse. They don't really need fog, just water. The fog is dropped
to the roots off the tree as rain. I have a few Dawn seeds I'll try one
at a time...

And the range of the Costals and Giants were to the Mississippi river
before the mountains in the western part of the US rose and cut off the
water. The giant stones and logs in the petrified forest in Arizona are
Sempervirens. They have been around since the Jurassic period.

Currently the range is in France, I got a small grove going there near
Bordeaux. And there is a large stand in northern Scotland. The attempt
was to spread the species in case of a unique issue in the life of the
earth destroyed the stands in California. Chemical or imported bug has
shown itself to destroy the Chestnut groves and pine tree (on going).
With silicon valley and petrochemical plants in the area anything could
happen.

Martin


On 1/8/2016 2:13 PM, dpb wrote:
On 01/08/2016 1:49 PM, dpb wrote:
...

Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.

As for common, I'd say sequoia are essentially "a dime a dozen" in their
range.

And, they're (coastal redwood) the only hexaploid _conifer_, _NOT_ the
only hexaploid tree. While most hexaploid plants are grasses, etc.,
rather than woody plants, there are some deciduous trees which are
hexaploid as well.

--

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:49:53 -0600
dpb wrote:

Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.

people like to believe what they want
i would not play the spoiler

As for common, I'd say sequoia are essentially "a dime a dozen" in
their range.

sure thing

I'd say growing seasons is the soft more alive ring area
and the hard ring is the winter very slow growing.

The Redwoods would grow a foot or more on every rain or heavy fog.
After a fair rain, you could stand outside and hear the wood swell.

We had one near the house that was maybe a 30" sapling (diameter) and
as it grew upward the trunk rotated. The lower limbs were trimmed off
the deck only to have new ones sweep inward towards the house. Not all
did that and I think the wood might be beautiful if cut, but have no
idea on strength with twisted grain.

Martin

On 1/9/2016 9:18 AM, dpb wrote:
On 01/09/2016 7:17 AM, Bill wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 01/08/2016 1:49 PM, dpb wrote:
On 01/08/2016 10:56 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:43:01 -0600
wrote:

But, the possibility of a time span of "decades" between growth rings
of any of the common trees we in rec.woodworking would even know
existed and growing in NA or any similar temperate climate is
essentially zero.

would not consider sequoia to be common
it is the only hexaploid tree
it is the tallest tree

much prefer the dendrochronologist analysis over yours or
rec.woodworking
...

Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.

Or, more specifically, even a single paper that supports the claim of
"decades" (I'd even take several years) between growth rings of any
tree in any temperate climate.

--
From what I understand (probably from reading Hasluck's thick
compilation), even a single growth ring has a spring part and a winter
part. It's difficult to argue with that. Maybe the dispute here has to
go with what one calls a "growth ring". I believe I would say that the
trunk of a tree has growth rings even if they are invisible to the naked
eye. In fact, I would define them in terms of annual seasons.
...

The dispute here is that I don't believe the claim that a single growth
ring can take "decades" to form is based on anything but I'd be most
interested to see how that could be if it were indeed, really so.

As noted in all recent literature, the term "annual rings" is considered
to be less than accurate owing to its reliance on temperate zone with
regular seasons to be so; the tropics of course being the extreme the
other direction. I was simply noting that owing to aberrations in
normal weather it's possible for there to be the occasional extra or
even a missed growth cycle in a given year even in normally very regular
seasonal areas and one could postulate severe climatic events that could
cause, perhaps, even more than a single year duration of such albeit
more and more unlikely as the time frame expands. To think there would
be such that lasted for a ten year span is simply expecting too much; or
if so, as noted above I'd surely like to see the specimen in which it
was found.

--

On 01/09/2016 10:01 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:49:53 -0600
wrote:

Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.

people like to believe what they want
i would not play the spoiler
....

Pshaw! You made the claim, show the basis in the research, otherwise
admit you're just "making it up".

--

On 1/10/2016 9:45 AM, dpb wrote:
On 01/09/2016 10:01 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:49:53 -0600
wrote:

Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.

people like to believe what they want
i would not play the spoiler
...

Pshaw! You made the claim, show the basis in the research, otherwise
admit you're just "making it up".

--


He does not seem to be capable of communicating whether it be from lack
of education or just being lazy. I seriously doubt he could find the
information you are asking him to produce, again for the above reasons.

On 01/10/2016 9:53 AM, Leon wrote:
....

He does not seem to be capable of communicating whether it be from lack
of education or just being lazy. I seriously doubt he could find the
information you are asking him to produce, again for the above reasons.

Yes, Leon, I shouldn't let myself get riled, but I do hate for actual
misinformation to be unchallenged in rec.woodworking simply for
posterity if nothing else (and, if there were really something to the
claim it'd be nice to know what it _really_ was that tried to report;
often it is so that a research conclusion is badly misstated as to what
that conclusion really was).

--

On 01/09/2016 9:59 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.

All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.
....

Don't confuse a hard (really in this usage "strong" is probably more
appropriate than "hard") wood with a "hardwood" vs "softwood" species.

"Despite what one might think based on the names, not all softwoods have
soft, lightweight wood, nor do all hardwoods have hard, heavy wood. To
define them botanically, softwoods are those woods that come from
gymnosperms (mostly conifers), and hardwoods are woods that come from
angiosperms (flowering plants). In the temperate portion of the
northern hemisphere, softwoods are generally needle-leaved evergreen
trees such as pine (Pinus) and spruce (Picea), whereas hardwoods are
typically broadleaf, deciduous trees such as maple (Acer), birch
(Betula), and oak (Quercus). ..."

US FPL Wood Handbook, Chap 3, p 2

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/products/publications/specific_pub.php?posting_id=17963&header_id=p

is link to online-viewable pdf by chapter. It's a great resource for
most anything wood related...

--

On 01/10/2016 10:31 AM, dpb wrote:
On 01/10/2016 9:53 AM, Leon wrote:
...

He does not seem to be capable of communicating whether it be from lack
of education or just being lazy. I seriously doubt he could find the
information you are asking him to produce, again for the above reasons.

Yes, Leon, I shouldn't let myself get riled, but I do hate for actual
misinformation to be unchallenged in rec.woodworking simply for
posterity if nothing else (and, if there were really something to the
claim it'd be nice to know what it _really_ was that tried to report;
often it is so that a research conclusion is badly misstated as to what
that conclusion really was).

And, of course, even if it were true (which I truly doubt), I'm not
going to start proclaiming it based on the above assertions without
evidence of what it is that is actually being proclaimed...otoh, if that
were to be made manifest, then I'd be more than happy to have been
educated on the specific point and glad to proselytize it where it were
to be significant and in consonance with the then-current discussion.

--

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.

All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.

Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some
variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?

Look it up yourself. Redwood is considered both structural for beams
and a hard wood. If the wood is old - e.g. sawed months or years ago
it is hard to nail through. Not much sap inside so it lasts and lasts.

Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood. Just like the
mighty oak decays faster than the fast growing popular.

And have you ever built a deck with redwood and one of pine or oak ?
pine fails fastest, then the oak then after more time the redwood takes
a refinishing and resealing.

I had a back deck that had 6x6 posts that were 22 feet long (tall). The
deck attached to the ground floor of the house and the outside on top of
these tall posts. After 17 years the posts were good as new and
had sharp square corners. Softwood would melt away.

We were getting 60" in low rain years, 30 when it didn't rain and over
100 when it poured. It was a rain forest with moss and fern all over.

http://www.calredwood.org/

Some call it soft because they don't use it. Some call it hard because
the experts call it that way. And the lumber stores call it that way.
It is a different species than conus or pines. Different rings and
structure.

Martin

On 1/10/2016 4:11 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.

All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.

Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some
variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?

In article ,
says...

Look it up yourself. Redwood is considered both structural for beams
and a hard wood. If the wood is old - e.g. sawed months or years ago
it is hard to nail through. Not much sap inside so it lasts and lasts.

A hard wood and a hardwood are not the same. Balsa is a hardwood but it
is not a hard wood.

Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood.

Yes, it does.

Just like the
mighty oak decays faster than the fast growing popular.

??? What does decaying have to do with biological taxonomy? And if you
know of a source of non-torrefied poplar that holds up to the elements
better than white oak then please share it.

And have you ever built a deck with redwood and one of pine or oak ?
pine fails fastest, then the oak then after more time the redwood takes
a refinishing and resealing.

So what?

I had a back deck that had 6x6 posts that were 22 feet long (tall). The
deck attached to the ground floor of the house and the outside on top of
these tall posts. After 17 years the posts were good as new and
had sharp square corners. Softwood would melt away.

Unless it's redwood.

We were getting 60" in low rain years, 30 when it didn't rain and over
100 when it poured. It was a rain forest with moss and fern all over.

http://www.calredwood.org/

Some call it soft because they don't use it. Some call it hard
because
the experts call it that way. And the lumber stores call it that way.
It is a different species than conus or pines. Different rings and
structure.

So? It's still a softwood.

You seem to think that "hardwood" vs "softwood" is some kind of value
judgment. It isn't.

On 1/10/2016 4:11 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.

All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.

Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some
variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?

On 1/10/2016 9:59 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
Look it up yourself. Redwood is considered both structural for beams
and a hard wood. If the wood is old - e.g. sawed months or years ago
it is hard to nail through. Not much sap inside so it lasts and lasts.

Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood. Just like the
mighty oak decays faster than the fast growing popular.

And have you ever built a deck with redwood and one of pine or oak ?
pine fails fastest, then the oak then after more time the redwood takes
a refinishing and resealing.

I had a back deck that had 6x6 posts that were 22 feet long (tall). The
deck attached to the ground floor of the house and the outside on top of
these tall posts. After 17 years the posts were good as new and
had sharp square corners. Softwood would melt away.

We were getting 60" in low rain years, 30 when it didn't rain and over
100 when it poured. It was a rain forest with moss and fern all over.

http://www.calredwood.org/

Some call it soft because they don't use it. Some call it hard because
the experts call it that way. And the lumber stores call it that way.
It is a different species than conus or pines. Different rings and
structure.

Whether the wood is actually hard or soft, it does not matter to be
technically called one or the other. As I believe it has been pointed
out it is mostly determined by the leaves and or fruit.


Balsa is considered a hardwood, the wood is not. SYP is considered to
be a softwood, the wood is not.








Martin

On 1/10/2016 4:11 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.

All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.

Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some
variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?

On 01/10/2016 9:59 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
....

Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood. ...

Ah, there is confusion. Being a "softwood" doesn't (necessarily) make
it a "soft" wood. There's a distinct difference between the two; the
former is a noun describing the broad taxonomic classification to which
a given species belongs whereas the other is a combination of adjective
applied to the noun describing the property of the particular species.

Again I refer you to the FPL tome, this time Chapters 2 and 5--

Classification of primary species by the broad taxonomy to which they
belong--

Table 2€“1. Major resources of U.S. woods according to region

Western Northern and Appalachian Southern

Hardwoods
Alder, red Ash Ash
Ash, Oregon Aspen Basswood
Aspen Basswood Beech
Birch, paper Beech Butternut
Cottonwood Birch Cottonwood
Maple, bigleaf Buckeye Elm
Oak, California black Butternut Hackberry
Oak, Oregon white Cherry Hickory
Tanoak Cottonwood Honeylocust
Elm Locust, black
Hackberry Magnolia
Hickory Maple, soft
Honeylocust Oak, red and white
Locust, black Sassafras
Maple, hard Sweetgum
Maple, soft Sycamore
Oak, red and white Tupelo
Sycamore Walnut
Walnut Willow
Yellow-poplar Yellow-poplar

Softwoods
Douglas-fir Cedar, northern white Baldcypress
Fir, western Fir, balsam Cedar, Atlantic white
Hemlock, western Hemlock, eastern Fir, Fraser
and mountain Pine, eastern white Pine, southern
Incense-cedar Pine, Jack Redcedar, eastern
Larch, western Pine, red
Pine, lodgepole Redcedar, eastern
Pine, ponderosa Spruce, eastern
Pine, sugar Tamarack
Pine, western white
Port-Orford-cedar
Redcedar, western
Redwood
Spruce, Engelmann
Spruce, Sitka
Yellow-cedar

Measured mechanical properties for some selected species for comparison.
Note: "Hardness" here is the modified Janka compression test which is
measured by the load required to embed a roughly half-inch (0.444")
diameter ball to one-half its diameter depth.

Table 5€“3b. Strength properties of some commercially important woods
grown in the United States

Static bending

Modulus
of Side
Common species Moisture Specific elasticity hardness
names content gravity (xE6lbf in€“2) (lbf)

Hardwoods

Ash
Black Green 0.45 1.04 520
12% 0.49 1.60 850
White Green 0.55 1.44 960
12% 0.60 1.74 1320
Aspen
Quaking Green 0.35 0.86 300
12% 0.38 1.18 350
Beech, American Green 0.56 1.38 859
12% 0.64 1.72 1300
Cherry, black Green 0.47 1.31 600
12% 0.50 1.49 950
Locust, black
Green 0.66 1.85 1570
12% 0.69 2.05 1700
Yellow-poplar Green 0.40 1.22 440
12% 0.42 1.58 540

Softwoods
Cedar
Eastern red Green 0.44 0.65 650
12% 0.47 0.88 €”
Western red Green 0.31 0.94 260
12% 0.32 1.11 350
Douglas-fir
Coast Green 0.45 1.56 500
12% 0.48 1.95 710
Interior South Green 0.43 1.16 360
12% 0.46 1.49 510
Pine
Eastern white Green 0.34 0.99 290
12% 0.35 1.24 380
Longleaf Green 0.54 1.59 590
12% 0.59 1.98 870
Ponderosa Green 0.38 1.00 320
12% 0.40 1.29 460
Redwood
Old-growth Green 0.38 1.18 410
12% 0.40 1.34 480
Young-growth Green 0.34 0.96 350
12% 0.35 1.10 420

I've picked a few of various well-known and used species from each
category with an eye to illustrating characteristics. As can be seen,
in general it's certainly true the "hardwoods" are harder than the
"softwoods" which is clearly the reason the generic classification came
to be. Much like the "annual ring" vis a vis "growth ring"
nomenclature, it's common idiomatic and not really entirely accurate but
it's so established it's what is used for commercial classification and
hence is the convention even amongst research organizations such as US
FPL to retain it for that general use.

Interestingly, one can note that while old-growth redwood is a wonderful
wood for many of its properties (not the least of which is, of course,
that there's so much clear grain owing to the size of the log), it
really isn't _that_ hard in comparison with the other structural pines
and is in fact quite soft compared to the typical SYP (of which I chose
Longleaf as representative of the classification which is again a
trade/commercial grading of several closely related species that are
essentially indistinguishable, not any single species). In comparison
to an Eastern white pine or cedar it is quite a lot harder, yes.

So, upshot is, don't take the designation of redwood as a "softwood" as
any denigration of the wood itself; it's merely the classification in
which it falls by its taxonomy and commercial classification.

--

On 1/10/2016 10:59 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
Look it up yourself. Redwood is considered both structural for beams
and a hard wood. If the wood is old - e.g. sawed months or years ago
it is hard to nail through. Not much sap inside so it lasts and lasts.

Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood.
yes it does. Just like balsa is considered a hardwood. Technically
speaking, deciduous = hardwood, conifer=softwood.
That has nothing to do with it's actual hardness since balsa is one of
the softest woods.


Just like the
mighty oak decays faster than the fast growing popular.

And have you ever built a deck with redwood and one of pine or oak ?
pine fails fastest, then the oak then after more time the redwood takes
a refinishing and resealing.

I had a back deck that had 6x6 posts that were 22 feet long (tall). The
deck attached to the ground floor of the house and the outside on top of
these tall posts. After 17 years the posts were good as new and
had sharp square corners. Softwood would melt away.

We were getting 60" in low rain years, 30 when it didn't rain and over
100 when it poured. It was a rain forest with moss and fern all over.

http://www.calredwood.org/

Some call it soft because they don't use it. Some call it hard because
the experts call it that way. And the lumber stores call it that way.
It is a different species than conus or pines. Different rings and
structure.

Martin

On 1/10/2016 4:11 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.

All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.

Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some
variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?




--
Jeff

On 01/11/2016 11:22 AM, dpb wrote:

Try reformatting the tables -- use a fixed font and should be moderately
legible now w/o tab spacing--

Table 2€“1. Major resources of U.S. woods according to region

Western Northern and Appalachian Southern

Hardwoods
Alder, red Ash Ash
Ash, Oregon Aspen Basswood
Aspen Basswood Beech
Birch, paper Beech Butternut
Cottonwood Birch Cottonwood
Maple, bigleaf Buckeye Elm
Oak, California black Butternut Hackberry
Oak, Oregon white Cherry Hickory
Tanoak Cottonwood Honeylocust
Elm Locust, black
Hackberry Magnolia
Hickory Maple, soft
Honeylocust Oak, red
and white
Locust, black Sassafras
Maple, hard Sweetgum
Maple, soft Sycamore
Oak, red and white Tupelo
Sycamore Walnut
Walnut Willow
Yellow-poplar Yellow-poplar

Softwoods
Douglas-fir Cedar, northern white Baldcypress
Fir, western Fir, balsam Cedar,
Atlantic white
Hemlock, western Hemlock, eastern Fir, Fraser
and mountain Pine, eastern white Pine,
southern
Incense-cedar Pine, Jack Redcedar,
eastern
Larch, western Pine, red
Pine, lodgepole Redcedar, eastern
Pine, ponderosa Spruce, eastern
Pine, sugar Tamarack
Pine, western white
Port-Orford-cedar
Redcedar, western
Redwood
Spruce, Engelmann
Spruce, Sitka
Yellow-cedar

Measured mechanical properties for some selected species for comparison.
Note: "Hardness" here is the modified Janka compression test which is
measured by the load required to embed a roughly half-inch (0.444")
diameter ball to one-half its diameter depth.

Table 5€“3b. Strength properties of some commercially important woods
grown in the United States

Modulus of
Common species Moisture Specific Side Elasticity Hardness
names content gravity (xE6lbf in€“2) (lbf)

Hardwoods
Ash
Black Green 0.45 1.04 520
12% 0.49 1.60 850
White Green 0.55 1.44 960
12% 0.60 1.74 1320
Aspen
Quaking Green 0.35 0.86 300
12% 0.38 1.18 350
Beech, American Green 0.56 1.38 859
12% 0.64 1.72 1300
Cherry, black Green 0.47 1.31 600
12% 0.50 1.49 950
Locust, black Green 0.66 1.85 1570
12% 0.69 2.05 1700
Yellow-poplar Green 0.40 1.22 440
12% 0.42 1.58 540

Softwoods
Cedar
Eastern red Green 0.44 0.65 650
12% 0.47 0.88 €”
Western red Green 0.31 0.94 260
12% 0.32 1.11 350
Douglas-fir
Coast Green 0.45 1.56 500
12% 0.48 1.95 710
Interior South Green 0.43 1.16 360
12% 0.46 1.49 510
Pine
Eastern white Green 0.34 0.99 290
12% 0.35 1.24 380
Longleaf Green 0.54 1.59 590
12% 0.59 1.98 870
Ponderosa Green 0.38 1.00 320
12% 0.40 1.29 460
Redwood
Old-growth Green 0.38 1.18 410
12% 0.40 1.34 480
Young-growth Green 0.34 0.96 350
12% 0.35 1.10 420

On 01/09/2016 10:05 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
I'd say growing seasons is the soft more alive ring area
and the hard ring is the winter very slow growing.

Generally true altho specifics again vary by species.

I can't suggest strongly enough to actually go read Hoadley or Chapter 3
of FPL Handbook or the like but from the latter--

"In temperate portions of the world and anywhere else with distinct,
regular seasonality, trees form their wood in annual growth increments;
that is, all the wood produced in one growing season is organized
together into a recognizable, functional entity that many sources refer
to as annual rings. Such terminology reflects this temperate bias, so a
preferred term is growth increment, or growth ring (IAWA 1989). ...
Woods that form distinct growth rings, and this includes most woods that
are likely to be used as engineering materials in North America, show
three fundamental patterns within a growth ring: no change in cell
pattern across the ring; a gradual reduction of the inner diameter of
conducting elements from the earlywood to the latewood; and a sudden and
distinct change in the inner diameter of the conducting elements across
the ring (Fig. 3€“5). These patterns appear in both softwoods and
hardwoods but differ in each because of the distinct anatomical
differences between the two.

Non-porous woods (or softwoods, woods without vessels) can exhibit any
of these three general patterns. Some softwoods such as Western
red-cedar (Thuja plicata), northern white-cedar (Thuja occidentalis),
and species of spruce (Picea) and true fir (Abies) have growth
increments that undergo a gradual transition from the thin-walled
wide-lumined earlywood cells to the thicker-walled, narrower-lumined
latewood cells (Fig. 3€“5B). Other woods undergo an abrupt transition
from earlywood to latewood, such as southern yellow pine (Pinus), larch
(Larix), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), baldcypress (Taxodium
disticum), and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) (Fig. 3€“5C). Because most
softwoods are native to the north temperate regions, growth rings are
clearly evident. Only in species such as araucaria (Araucaria) and some
podocarps (Podocarpus) does one find no transition within the growth
ring (Fig. 3€“5A). Some authors report this state as growth rings being
absent or only barely evident (Phillips 1948, Kukachka 1960).
Porous woods (or hardwoods, woods with vessels) have two main types of
growth rings and one intermediate form. In diffuse-porous woods, vessels
either do not markedly differ in size and distribution from the
earlywood to the latewood, or the change in size and distribution is
gradual and no clear distinction between earlywood and latewood can be
found (Fig. 3€“5D). Maple (Acer), birch (Betula), aspen/cottonwood
(Populus), and yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) are examples of
diffuse porous species.

This pattern is in contrast to ring-porous woods wherein the transition
from earlywood to latewood is abrupt, with vessel diameters decreasing
substantially (often by an order or magnitude or more); this change in
vessel size is often accompanied by a change in the pattern of vessel
distribution as well. This creates a ring pattern of large earlywood
vessels around the inner portion of the growth increment, and then
denser, more fibrous tissue in the latewood, as is found in hackberry
(Celtis occidentalis), white ash (Fraxinus americana), shagbark hickory
(Carya ovata), and northern red oak (Quercus rubra) (Fig. 3€“5F).
Sometimes the vessel size and distribution pattern falls more or less
between these two definitions, and this condition is referred to as
semi-ring-porous (Fig. 3€“5E). Black walnut (Juglans nigra) is a
temperate-zone semi-ring-porous wood. Most tropical hardwoods are
diffuse-porous; the best-known commercial exceptions to this are the
Spanish-cedars (Cedrela spp.) and teak (Tectona grandis), which are
generally semi-ring-porous and ring-porous, respectively.

Few distinctly ring-porous species grow in the tropics and comparatively
few grow in the southern hemisphere. In genera that span temperate and
tropical zones, it is common to have ring-porous species in the
temperate zone and diffuse-porous species in the tropics. The oaks
(Quercus), ashes (Fraxinus), and hackberries (Celtis) native to the
tropics are diffuse-porous, whereas their temperate congeners are
ring-porous. Numerous detailed texts provide more information on growth
increments in wood, a few of which are of particular note (Panshin and
deZeeuw 1980, Dickison 2000, Carlquist 2001).


The Redwoods would grow a foot or more on every rain or heavy fog.
After a fair rain, you could stand outside and hear the wood swell.

We had one near the house that was maybe a 30" sapling (diameter) and
as it grew upward the trunk rotated. The lower limbs were trimmed off
the deck only to have new ones sweep inward towards the house. Not all
did that and I think the wood might be beautiful if cut, but have no
idea on strength with twisted grain.
....
Botanically, softwoods are gymnosperms or conifers; their seeds are not
enclosed in the ovary of the flower. Anatomically, softwoods are
nonporous (they 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.


One can see/hear similar phenomenon in cornfield in hot weather if have
adequate moisture; one can almost see it actually grow. If it takes a
redwood 2000 yr more or less to get 300 ft, though, that's only an
average of under 2" per year. Reminds me of what Mark Twain said of the
length of the Mississippi River if one took the claims of it's
lengthening on an annual basis to their logical conclusion!

I've visited the redwoods both coastal and the giants numerous times but
haven't had the opportunity to spend a full day or more at a given spot...

--

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:18:45 -0500, woodchucker
wrote:

On 1/10/2016 10:59 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
Look it up yourself. Redwood is considered both structural for beams
and a hard wood. If the wood is old - e.g. sawed months or years ago
it is hard to nail through. Not much sap inside so it lasts and lasts.

Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood.
yes it does. Just like balsa is considered a hardwood. Technically
speaking, deciduous = hardwood, conifer=softwood.
That has nothing to do with it's actual hardness since balsa is one of
the softest woods.

The technical difference isn't whether, or not, it drops leaves
(deciduous). Many conifers drop leaves every year. The delineation
is made based on the seeds. If the seeds are contained in the ovary,
it's a hardwood. If the seeds are external, on the leaves (cones
included), it's a softwood.

There are a lot of weird varieties of plants around and I didn't know
if there were an exception to the soft/hardwood thing in Redwoods.



Just like the
mighty oak decays faster than the fast growing popular.

And have you ever built a deck with redwood and one of pine or oak ?
pine fails fastest, then the oak then after more time the redwood takes
a refinishing and resealing.

I had a back deck that had 6x6 posts that were 22 feet long (tall). The
deck attached to the ground floor of the house and the outside on top of
these tall posts. After 17 years the posts were good as new and
had sharp square corners. Softwood would melt away.

We were getting 60" in low rain years, 30 when it didn't rain and over
100 when it poured. It was a rain forest with moss and fern all over.

http://www.calredwood.org/

Some call it soft because they don't use it. Some call it hard because
the experts call it that way. And the lumber stores call it that way.
It is a different species than conus or pines. Different rings and
structure.

Martin

On 1/10/2016 4:11 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.

All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.

Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some
variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?

On 01/11/2016 8:49 PM, krw wrote:
....

The technical difference isn't whether, or not, it drops leaves
(deciduous). Many conifers drop leaves every year. The delineation
is made based on the seeds. If the seeds are contained in the ovary,
it's a hardwood. If the seeds are external, on the leaves (cones
included), it's a softwood.

There are a lot of weird varieties of plants around and I didn't know
if there were an exception to the soft/hardwood thing in Redwoods.
....

Newpsies, the redwoods are gymnosperms, hence "softwoods" as opposed to
angiosperms which are "hardwoods" which are the high-falutin' names for
whether seeds are, or are not, contained as you describe.

There are, iirc, some four(?) classifications within the angiosperms,
but other than the conifers which is what redwoods and the other
well-known pines, firs, etc., are, only the gingko is anything much very
"tree-like" and are generally also tropical.

As you say, there are some really strange specimens one can find but
they're not, for the most part, wood-producers.

The "hardwood/softwood" thing is somewhat unfortunate but it evolved
from observation of the characteristics of the wood itself in comparison
by users thereof, not from the botanists or taxonomists; that came much
later but the colloquial usage is too far established to change.

--

On 01/12/2016 11:03 AM, dpb wrote:
....

There are, iirc, some four(?) classifications within the angiosperms,
but other than the conifers which is what redwoods and the other
well-known pines, firs, etc., are, only the gingko is anything much very
"tree-like" and are generally also tropical.

....

Well, that's embarrassing...pasted the wrong one in there fer shure...

That's

"There are, iirc, some four(?) classifications within the GYMNOSPERMs..."

--

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:45:38 -0600
dpb wrote:

Pshaw! You made the claim, show the basis in the research, otherwise

do some searching that is how i found it
you could hire someone I guess too

On 01/13/2016 12:47 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:45:38 -0600
wrote:

Pshaw! You made the claim, show the basis in the research, otherwise

do some searching that is how i found it
you could hire someone I guess too

If you did, you could certainly post the result.

I did do some searching and found _nothing_ even close to the specific
claim.

So, again, if you want to make a convert, provide the material. As
said, if it's really so, I'd like to know how and where.

--

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:53:01 -0600
dpb wrote:

said, if it's really so, I'd like to know how and where.

just keep trying that is the best thing to do

or be content to believe what you want

On 01/13/2016 1:06 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:53:01 -0600
wrote:

said, if it's really so, I'd like to know how and where.

just keep trying that is the best thing to do

Nonsense. You're just blowin' smoke 'cuz you know it ain't so but can't
admit it.

plonk

--

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:20:36 -0600
dpb wrote:

plonk

this is good sign
if you could do this you should be able to perform a simple search

but the insults are the sign of a failure on your part

On 01/13/2016 1:27 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:20:36 -0600
wrote:

plonk

this is good sign
if you could do this you should be able to perform a simple search
....

OK, I'll wait for just one more attempt. No insult intended, just
perception of fact that you have no real information to impart.

_IF_ you did such a search successfully it should take you less time to
reenter the string for which you found the desired info and post a
result or _at_a_minimum_ post the winning search string that uncovered
the elusive tidbit than you've taken otherwise to respond with nothing.

Or, even failing that, provide in your own words the physiology of
botanic growth that can produce this phenomenon of a single growth ring
taking "decades" to form such that it supposedly is a tenet of
dendrochronology but somehow isn't mentioned in any summary of tenets or
limitations of the field I can find.

I've outlined my understanding of how there could possibly be an
_additional_ one here and there owing to climatic variation inducing an
additional growth/dormant cycle in a given calendar year and have
hypothesized the narrowness or even absence of one now and again but I
really can not see how there could be such a case as to take ten years
or more for a given growth cycle to have occurred frequently enough it
would be a regular feature to be accounted for in the field.

If you can fill me in on what I'm missing, I'm all ears (or eyes )...

--

On 1/13/2016 2:27 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:20:36 -0600
dpb wrote:

plonk

this is good sign
if you could do this you should be able to perform a simple search

but the insults are the sign of a failure on your part


Actually, no - the indications of failure are on your part. You have a
proven history here.



--
-Mike-

On 1/13/2016 2:27 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:20:36 -0600
dpb wrote:

plonk

this is good sign
if you could do this you should be able to perform a simple search

but the insults are the sign of a failure on your part


Actually, no - the indications of failure are on your part. You have a
proven history here.



--
-Mike-

On 1/13/2016 1:27 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:20:36 -0600
dpb wrote:

plonk

this is good sign
if you could do this you should be able to perform a simple search

but the insults are the sign of a failure on your part


Actually not being able to find something that does not exist is not a
failure.

Failure to produce proof what you think you have seen is a failure.

does the pore size and shape indicate by cone or not ?


On 1/11/2016 5:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Look it up yourself. Redwood is considered both structural for beams
and a hard wood. If the wood is old - e.g. sawed months or years ago
it is hard to nail through. Not much sap inside so it lasts and lasts.

A hard wood and a hardwood are not the same. Balsa is a hardwood but it
is not a hard wood.

Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood.

Yes, it does.

Just like the
mighty oak decays faster than the fast growing popular.

??? What does decaying have to do with biological taxonomy? And if you
know of a source of non-torrefied poplar that holds up to the elements
better than white oak then please share it.

And have you ever built a deck with redwood and one of pine or oak ?
pine fails fastest, then the oak then after more time the redwood takes
a refinishing and resealing.

So what?

I had a back deck that had 6x6 posts that were 22 feet long (tall). The
deck attached to the ground floor of the house and the outside on top of
these tall posts. After 17 years the posts were good as new and
had sharp square corners. Softwood would melt away.

Unless it's redwood.

We were getting 60" in low rain years, 30 when it didn't rain and over
100 when it poured. It was a rain forest with moss and fern all over.

http://www.calredwood.org/

Some call it soft because they don't use it. Some call it hard
because
the experts call it that way. And the lumber stores call it that way.
It is a different species than conus or pines. Different rings and
structure.

So? It's still a softwood.

You seem to think that "hardwood" vs "softwood" is some kind of value
judgment. It isn't.

On 1/10/2016 4:11 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the
Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are
shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are
the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet
diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn
redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.

All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't
acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood.

Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some
variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?

On 01/14/2016 10:51 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
does the pore size and shape indicate by cone or not ?

Not at all certain what you're asking but if there's a correlation of
the size and shape of the cone to the wood characteristics, "not
really"; there are different characteristics and the cone styles seem to
have evolved relatively independently from the actual wood. Again,

"Non-porous woods (or softwoods, woods without vessels) can exhibit any
of these three general patterns. Some softwoods such as Western
red-cedar (Thuja plicata), northern white-cedar (Thuja occidentalis),
and species of spruce (Picea) and true fir (Abies) have growth
increments that undergo a gradual transition from the thin-walled
wide-lumined earlywood cells to the thicker-walled, narrower-lumined
latewood cells (Fig. 3€“5B). Other woods undergo an abrupt transition
from earlywood to latewood, such as southern yellow pine (Pinus), larch
(Larix), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), baldcypress (Taxodium
disticum), and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) (Fig. 3€“5C). Because most
softwoods are native to the north temperate regions, growth rings are
clearly evident."

There's much more at

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/products/publications/specific_pub.php?posting_id=17963&header_id=p

Chapters 2 & 3 early on and if want even more in the botanical vein
there are gazillion references within...

--