Notre Dame Cathedral in France is on fire

[RedTeamGo!]

I don’t really want to get into a debate about wood but I keep re-reading that sentence about shingles not warming because they were installed at night and keep laughing. Good stuff.

[WrongVerb]

So, kaldaniels, your silent response to my answer to why people from earlier centuries believed there were benefits to cutting trees and wood in accordance to the cycles of the Moon leads me to respond with; when you asked, "Why?", were you looking for an explanation or an argument?

What you provided wasn't a "why" in the sense that it didn't explain the physical processes in effect that might make it better to cut trees down during a certain time of the month when more sunlight is being reflected by the moon.

[kaldaniels]

So, kaldaniels, your silent response to my answer to why people from earlier centuries believed there were benefits to cutting trees and wood in accordance to the cycles of the Moon leads me to respond with; when you asked, "Why?", were you looking for an explanation or an argument?

Yikes.

No motive my man. To be honest I was looking for an explanation more than folklore type stuff but I’m not interested in pursuing the subject one inch further.

I see Sea Ray liked your post above. Hi Sea Ray!

[BernieCarbo]

I highly doubt the lore about cutting trees during a full moon. If you look at European lumber techniques, even now, there are much more important differences.

First, they manage their forests to produce tall, straight, limbless trunks. This will always produce straighter, more predictable wood. Second, if wood is to be used in furniture or doors or something like that, the logs are sticked and allowed to air dry for sometimes years before sawing. After sawing, they air dry it some more. The result is wood that has reached a total temperature and water equilibrium and it won’t warp. There is nothing magical about it.

[RedTeamGo!]

Yikes.

No motive my man. To be honest I was looking for an explanation more than folklore type stuff but I’m not interested in pursuing the subject one inch further.

I see Sea Ray liked your post above. Hi Sea Ray!

[kaldaniels]

After today’s posts I skimmed back through the thread and quickly put 2 and 2 together.

[Kingspoint]

I don’t really want to get into a debate about wood but I keep re-reading that sentence about shingles not warming because they were installed at night and keep laughing. Good stuff.

I couldn't quote more to help with it's understanding, but I gave you the book, available to you through the U.S. Inter-library checkout. I gave you enough in the next example from Eric Sloane's book that covers proving such a thing. Your laughing is simply contempt without investigation. Sloane doesn't laugh at it, and none of us here are the 16th and 17th Century experts of wood that he is. He honestly states that it's not able to scientifically prove, but adds the evidence from the results speak for themselves, the examples of 16th and 17th century fixtures where journals support their building details.

You have to read a little bit more than the small amount I could type onto a post.

[Kingspoint]

I highly doubt the lore about cutting trees during a full moon. If you look at European lumber techniques, even now, there are much more important differences.

First, they manage their forests to produce tall, straight, limbless trunks. This will always produce straighter, more predictable wood. Second, if wood is to be used in furniture or doors or something like that, the logs are sticked and allowed to air dry for sometimes years before sawing. After sawing, they air dry it some more. The result is wood that has reached a total temperature and water equilibrium and it won’t warp. There is nothing magical about it.

They also grow their timber faster and weaker and it does warp over time very quickly.

Seasoning timber in water was a common method.

A huge reason to get rid of the water in wood was so it's weight could be reduced by a third, thus making it more efficient to drag it through the woods. Dry wood also burned more efficiently.

[Kingspoint]

What you provided wasn't a "why" in the sense that it didn't explain the physical processes in effect that might make it better to cut trees down during a certain time of the month when more sunlight is being reflected by the moon.

I did provide Eric Sloane's admittance that he couldn't provide a physical reason because the evidence today is not available, and that was in 1954. There definitely isn't evidence now. And, nobody is going to do a 40-year study on the subject. He plainly states that folklore is always something that can't be proved because there just wasn't evidence written down back then to support it. But, he provides examples like, "shinglin' nights".

Every day, something we thought we "scientifically proved" turns out to be 100% wrong. Every single day. Every day we discover more of the folklore to be true. Every single day.

Don't disregard folklore with contempt without investigation.

It turns oit we clean our hands too damn much. We became germaphobes because of scientific evidence. Turns out that we need that dirt and microbes in our systems to build up our immune systems.

People from the 16th and 17th Centuries knew more about wood than the greatest scientists of Weyerhauser.

They also can't grow a decent tree in Europe anymore. That day passed many centuries ago.

[Kingspoint]

Yikes.

No motive my man. To be honest I was looking for an explanation more than folklore type stuff but I’m not interested in pursuing the subject one inch further.

I see Sea Ray liked your post above. Hi Sea Ray!

If you were looking for an explanation, you wouldn't have used the snarky words, "impress me", but something more friendly or casual like, "Why?", or "Do you have any source for that?".

I gave you a source, but the size of a post limits what can be transfered for copywrite reasons, while giving you the part where the author says that time and age make it impossible to prove, but that in 1954 there was still significant evidence to suggest that some of the folklore may be true. People "interested" in an explanation would take the source and read the pages around it to help understand it better, without worrying whether they believe it or not, but they gather the information for gathering sake to help themselves understand the subject a little bit better.

[kaldaniels]

If you were looking for an explanation, you wouldn't have used the snarky words, "impress me", but something more friendly or casual like, "Why?", or "Do you have any source for that?".

I gave you a source, but the size of a post limits what can be transfered for copywrite reasons, while giving you the part where the author says that time and age make it impossible to prove, but that in 1954 there was still significant evidence to suggest that some of the folklore may be true. People "interested" in an explanation would take the source and read the pages around it to help understand it better, without worrying whether they believe it or not, but they gather the information for gathering sake to help themselves understand the subject a little bit better.

It wasn't snark at all. It was serious. I could tell you were knowledgeable in the subject. As said I was looking for scientific reasons, but that didn't come...but that is fine and as I said I'm not interested in continuing the discussion on this.

I kindly ask this. Please don't state as fact what words I would use if I (me) were looking for an explanation.

I thank you for the time spent on the matter, but I sincerely wish you hadn't had such a hair-trigger in questioning my motives. When I said "Impress me" it was me awaiting a rock-star response. You suggest you'd rather have me say "do you have a source for that?", well to me that seems like a lawyering question that would not be received well by some.

When I said "Yikes" it was because I was taken back. Now as I piece this all together I see you were offended by the use of "Impress me". I don't know what to tell you about that . Frankly if that had offended you, I'd rather you just had ignored the question or mentioned that it offended you.

I don't know. It's late. And to me that sure was an odd back and forth.

[BernieCarbo]

They also grow their timber faster and weaker and it does warp over time very quickly.

In Europe? Where do you get that? Depending on the target use, the trees may be grown fast or slow. If it's for paper mills, they'll grow plantations of pulpwood. If it's for furniture, it will be grown in managed forests. It isn't grown weaker and does not "warp over time very quickly" (whatever that means).

Seasoning timber in water was a common method.

Air seasoning was by far the most common method. Sometimes trees were kept underwater until they were ready to be transported to the place where they would be stored and air dried.

A huge reason to get rid of the water in wood was so it's weight could be reduced by a third, thus making it more efficient to drag it through the woods. Dry wood also burned more efficiently.

That would apply for firewood, but not anything else. Typically trees were cut during the winter for several reasons. One, that is the time when the trees are the driest since the sap is in the roots. Two, it causes much less damage to other trees when there are no leaves. Three, it's easy to yard them out on frozen trails. Almost always they would cut trees during the winter and bring them to the banks of the river and then transport them in spring when the river water was high and fast moving.

[BernieCarbo]

They also can't grow a decent tree in Europe anymore. That day passed many centuries ago.

Where do you get this stuff? If you mean they can't grow a 1000 year old oak anymore, well, I suppose they can't do it right now, but they produce some fantastic timber.

[WrongVerb]

I did provide Eric Sloane's admittance that he couldn't provide a physical reason because the evidence today is not available, and that was in 1954. There definitely isn't evidence now. And, nobody is going to do a 40-year study on the subject. He plainly states that folklore is always something that can't be proved because there just wasn't evidence written down back then to support it.

Looking for supporting evidence only is what is known as motivated reasoning. What we need is an explanation that encompasses all the available empirical evidence.

But, he provides examples like, "shinglin' nights".

This just means a bunch of people believed the same thing. It doesn't provide justification for such a belief.

Every day, something we thought we "scientifically proved" turns out to be 100% wrong. Every single day. Every day we discover more of the folklore to be true. Every single day.

This is not accurate at all.

Don't disregard folklore with contempt without investigation.

Don't accept folklore without objective justification.

It turns oit we clean our hands too damn much. We became germaphobes because of scientific evidence. Turns out that we need that dirt and microbes in our systems to build up our immune systems.

Agreed. We used to have one understanding. Then we obtained additional empirical observations. Based on that we adjusted to a better understanding. Why is this seen as a negative?

People from the 16th and 17th Centuries knew more about wood than the greatest scientists of Weyerhauser.

I don't know anything about 17th century knowledge of wood, nor do I know what the materials scientists and engineers at Weyerhauser know today. Could you enlighten me with some specific examples please?

They also can't grow a decent tree in Europe anymore. That day passed many centuries ago.

This is an assertion stated as fact.

[Kingspoint]

It wasn't snark at all. It was serious. I could tell you were knowledgeable in the subject. As said I was looking for scientific reasons, but that didn't come...but that is fine and as I said I'm not interested in continuing the discussion on this.

I kindly ask this. Please don't state as fact what words I would use if I (me) were looking for an explanation.

I thank you for the time spent on the matter, but I sincerely wish you hadn't had such a hair-trigger in questioning my motives. When I said "Impress me" it was me awaiting a rock-star response. You suggest you'd rather have me say "do you have a source for that?", well to me that seems like a lawyering question that would not be received well by some.

When I said "Yikes" it was because I was taken back. Now as I piece this all together I see you were offended by the use of "Impress me". I don't know what to tell you about that . Frankly if that had offended you, I'd rather you just had ignored the question or mentioned that it offended you.

I don't know. It's late. And to me that sure was an odd back and forth.

Well, firstly and most importantly, I apologize for anything I wrote or conveyed that was hurtful or offensive.

I'm definitely not an expert on wood. Wouldn't even qualify as an amateur. I am interested in ancient trees and especially, how people used them centuries ago. Yesterday I was inside Oregon's oldest continuous use Covered Bridge. Ohio had 349 of them in 1954, second only to Pennsylvania's 390. Oregon had 149, 4th most. Today, Oregon has only 51 (originally designed for vehicular traffic). Don't know how many Ohio has left.

This bridge used a Howe Truss. It has been restored many times, including once after being lifted off of it's pilings in a flood in '61. Looking up, it's latest roof, made of modern pine, is rotting again. But, it's truss still uses the original first growth oak timbers cut down in 1916. Since settlers had only entered the area 75 years before that, they had their choices of Oak to be taken from hundreds of Oaks 250 to 350 years old. The oak from that truss is solid, and I question the strength of the 175 year old Oak trees from Versailles that will be used in the rebuilding of the infrastructure of Notre Dame. I keep reading that first growth trees are stronger than steel. Even after plight has killed a first growth tree, it stands for more than 50 years still looking like it could stand for another 50 more.

Anyway, I find trees fascinating. The largest Black Walnut tree in the world stands on Sauvie Island, just 15 minutes from our house. The last person who bought the property didn't even know they had the world's largest Black Walnut tree on their property.