Wood news

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-s-super-wood/

--
JS

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 6:31:01 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-s-super-wood/

--
JS

Interesting. I once built a 68ft racing yacht out of moulded layers of veneer. It was immensely strong and semi-permanent (the hull is still in commercial service in the China Sea) at a time when the only alternatives were glass-reinforced-plastic which was likely to delaminate within a decade, or wooden planking over hefty frames (my hull required zero bracing, being stiff enough by its curvature, so that the bulkheads were placed where they were required to support masts or to meet watertight compartment regulations). I was so impressed that I put a section on building automobile chasses out of wood in my book on prototype design.

However, I wonder if this particular wood technology will ever come down to bicycles, or at least to bicycles that look like the bicycles the usual luddites expect. The current method of making the most beautiful wooden bicycles is by moulded tubes, either made and machined down in halves and bonded, or as wrap-around strips of veneer on a foam core (I'm not even aware of a commercial application of the latter).

A compression method, as described in the article you cite, would either result in heavy solid rods that would horrify the weight weenies, or require expensive, sturdy, steel or possibly reinforced concrete, molds for half-tubes, and then bonding, which would be very costly at a time when, according to an article Andrew Muzi cited the other day, titanium production costs could be falling drastically.

On the other hand, of course, a bicycle doesn't *have* to be built out of hollow tubes. The Australian industrial designer, Marc Newson, to take just one example, designed a very beautiful bicycle cast in foamed aluminium as a single H-section S-shape running from the head tube to the stubby seat tube, down to the bottom bracket, and from there back to the rear frame end. Something like that would require only one, albeit large, mould to be made in this solidified wood, and could possibly offer a weight advantage. See
http://marc-newson.com/mn-bicycles/

Andre Jute
Bicycle design doesn't have to lurk in the dark ages

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 11:01:21 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 6:31:01 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-s-super-wood/

--
JS

Interesting. I once built a 68ft racing yacht out of moulded layers of veneer. It was immensely strong and semi-permanent (the hull is still in commercial service in the China Sea) at a time when the only alternatives were glass-reinforced-plastic which was likely to delaminate within a decade, or wooden planking over hefty frames (my hull required zero bracing, being stiff enough by its curvature, so that the bulkheads were placed where they were required to support masts or to meet watertight compartment regulations). I was so impressed that I put a section on building automobile chasses out of wood in my book on prototype design.

However, I wonder if this particular wood technology will ever come down to bicycles, or at least to bicycles that look like the bicycles the usual luddites expect. The current method of making the most beautiful wooden bicycles is by moulded tubes, either made and machined down in halves and bonded, or as wrap-around strips of veneer on a foam core (I'm not even aware of a commercial application of the latter).

A compression method, as described in the article you cite, would either result in heavy solid rods that would horrify the weight weenies, or require expensive, sturdy, steel or possibly reinforced concrete, molds for half-tubes, and then bonding, which would be very costly at a time when, according to an article Andrew Muzi cited the other day, titanium production costs could be falling drastically.

On the other hand, of course, a bicycle doesn't *have* to be built out of hollow tubes. The Australian industrial designer, Marc Newson, to take just one example, designed a very beautiful bicycle cast in foamed aluminium as a single H-section S-shape running from the head tube to the stubby seat tube, down to the bottom bracket, and from there back to the rear frame end.. Something like that would require only one, albeit large, mould to be made in this solidified wood, and could possibly offer a weight advantage. See
http://marc-newson.com/mn-bicycles/

There is this big push lately to make things out of wood -- even large buildings. https://www.architecturaldigest.com/...lding-portland I think the forest products industry wants to make wood the new steel.

Rather than rebranding wood, we should get our materials scientists to develop some process that turns plastic bags filled with dog **** into some super-material. Or maybe old tires or nuclear waste. Why aren't we squeezing old newspapers into some product stronger than titanium? I'm not excited about finding new ways to process trees.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 3/30/2018 7:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 11:01:21 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 6:31:01 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-s-super-wood/

--
JS

Interesting. I once built a 68ft racing yacht out of moulded layers of veneer. It was immensely strong and semi-permanent (the hull is still in commercial service in the China Sea) at a time when the only alternatives were glass-reinforced-plastic which was likely to delaminate within a decade, or wooden planking over hefty frames (my hull required zero bracing, being stiff enough by its curvature, so that the bulkheads were placed where they were required to support masts or to meet watertight compartment regulations). I was so impressed that I put a section on building automobile chasses out of wood in my book on prototype design.

However, I wonder if this particular wood technology will ever come down to bicycles, or at least to bicycles that look like the bicycles the usual luddites expect. The current method of making the most beautiful wooden bicycles is by moulded tubes, either made and machined down in halves and bonded, or as wrap-around strips of veneer on a foam core (I'm not even aware of a commercial application of the latter).

A compression method, as described in the article you cite, would either result in heavy solid rods that would horrify the weight weenies, or require expensive, sturdy, steel or possibly reinforced concrete, molds for half-tubes, and then bonding, which would be very costly at a time when, according to an article Andrew Muzi cited the other day, titanium production costs could be falling drastically.

On the other hand, of course, a bicycle doesn't *have* to be built out of hollow tubes. The Australian industrial designer, Marc Newson, to take just one example, designed a very beautiful bicycle cast in foamed aluminium as a single H-section S-shape running from the head tube to the stubby seat tube, down to the bottom bracket, and from there back to the rear frame end. Something like that would require only one, albeit large, mould to be made in this solidified wood, and could possibly offer a weight advantage. See
http://marc-newson.com/mn-bicycles/

There is this big push lately to make things out of wood -- even large buildings. https://www.architecturaldigest.com/...lding-portland I think the forest products industry wants to make wood the new steel.

Rather than rebranding wood, we should get our materials scientists to develop some process that turns plastic bags filled with dog **** into some super-material. Or maybe old tires or nuclear waste. Why aren't we squeezing old newspapers into some product stronger than titanium? I'm not excited about finding new ways to process trees.

-- Jay Beattie.


No idea about bags of dog poop but depleted uranium recycles
into a very useful .556:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...3182814AAvJcgD

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:59:03 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

I think the forest products industry wants to make wood the new steel.

Rather than rebranding wood, we should get our materials scientists to
develop some process that turns plastic bags filled with dog **** into
some super-material. Or maybe old tires or nuclear waste. Why aren't
we squeezing old newspapers into some product stronger than titanium?
I'm not excited about finding new ways to process trees.

Old tech still has money to spend to try to hang on just a little longer
before they are replaced- logging, oil, coal, etc. None of those are
actually sustainable any longer, despite the attempts at greenwashing.
Their profitability advantage continues to shrink and the companies that
utilize those old techs will move away as other options make more
financial sense. Oil companies should long ago have repositioned
themselves as multi-source energy companies, but they opted to double
down on what they know how to do and seek government protection from
new, threatening technologies. That's why your car still only gets 35
mpg on the highway and much worse in town. My 1990 Volvo got just
barely worse mileage than my 2017 Subaru (although my Dieselgate Jetta
got 52 mpg on the highway and 36 mpg in town). BTW, if you want to know
where the "deep state" really is, look no further than entrenched
industries with money to spend on buying influence.

Locally almost all coal-based electricity production has been replaced
by natural gas and wind because the total cost of production is equal or
lower over time and therefore profits are better. Logged and milled
wood as such has been replaced for many applications in the construction
industry by engineered materials. Cheaper, lighter, easier to work with
on site, can be made from recycled wood or plastics, made from smaller
fast growing species, etc.

On 4/1/2018 12:34 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
BTW, if you want to know
where the "deep state" really is, look no further than entrenched
industries with money to spend on buying influence.

I've been wondering if corporations are replacing national governments
as the prime agents of power, just as democracies replaced monarchies.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:55:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 4/1/2018 12:34 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
BTW, if you want to know where the "deep state" really is, look no
further than entrenched industries with money to spend on buying
influence.

I've been wondering if corporations are replacing national governments
as the prime agents of power, just as democracies replaced monarchies.

By and large that has been happening for at least a thousand years in
one form or another. Deciding that corporations are effectively
individuals with the same rights as real people escalated it. Citizens
United enrenched it into case law in keeping with the goal of modern
conservatism to ensure that government serves the needs of the rich
first and foremost. That paved the way to the rising fascist American
state (which is what "Trumpism" really is).

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:55:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 12:34 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
BTW, if you want to know
where the "deep state" really is, look no further than entrenched
industries with money to spend on buying influence.

I've been wondering if corporations are replacing national governments
as the prime agents of power, just as democracies replaced monarchies.

I seem to remember that as far back as ancient Athens people with
money faired better in the political system then "po folks". In Rome
the Census divided the population into 6 divisions determined by
wealth. In the English army it required personal wealth to be an
officer. Not because of any regulation but rather that the cash
outlay, Mess fees, laundry, servant, etc., was more then an officers
salary.

In short, money does count.... and corporations have a lot of money.

--
Cheers,

John B.