Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014[edit]

It must contain simplest word that can be understand by student. (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an easier article about wood at the Simple English Wikipedia. Does that help you? Tdslk (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:16 wood samples.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:16 wood samples.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 15, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-11-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A collection of sixteen wood samples, from left to right, top to bottom:

1. Pinus sylvestris (Pine)
2. Picea abies (Spruce)
3. Larix decidua (Larch)
4. Juniperus communis (Juniper)
5. Populus tremula (Aspen)
6. Carpinus betulus (Hornbeam)
7. Betula pubescens (Birch)
8. Alnus glutinosa (Alder)
9. Fagus sylvatica (Beech)
10. Quercus robur (Oak)
11. Ulmus glabra (Elm)
12. Prunus avium (Cherry)
13. Pyrus communis (Pear)
14. Acer platanoides (Maple)
15. Tilia cordata (Linden)
16. Fraxinus excelsior (Ash)

Photograph: Anonimski

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carbohydrate foam listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Carbohydrate foam. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heartwood sentence doesn't make much sense to me...[edit]

"Some uncertainty exists as to whether the wood dies during heartwood formation, as it can still chemically react to decay organisms, but only once." What exactly does this sentence mean? When organisms decay wood, isn't it usually already dead? How would a piece of wood react to a decay organism multiple times? Maybe I'm just not enough of a wood expert, but could someone let me know if this does make proper sense. TheSpoonKing (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structure: Call for citation unnecessary[edit]

At the end of the fourth paragraph of the section on Wood Structure, there is a call for a source of the information. The sentence in question is: These fibers are the elements which give strength and toughness to wood, while the vessels are a source of weakness. I don't see why a source needs to be cited for this statement. Not only is the reason for this intuitively obvious, but also it is explained in several ways in the rest of the article. The vessels are a source of weakness because they are open tubes. The more empty space, the less solid the structure; the less solid the structure, all other things being equal, the easier it is to break.

The concept is presented again under the subsection Wood:Structure:In Softwoods: When examined under a microscope, the cells of dense latewood are seen to be very thick-walled and with very small cell cavities, while those formed first in the season have thin walls and large cell cavities. The strength is in the walls, not the cavities. Hence the greater the proportion of latewood, the greater the density and strength.

But here there is no call for the citation of a source. I think that's as it should be. It should also be that way in the introductory paragraph mentioned above. The request for a citation is distracting and unnecessary. It should be removed.

For some reason, I am not considered to have the status necessary to make this edit myself. If you have that status and agree, please remove the request for the citation of a source. EditorCliff (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tabulated physical properties[edit]

In the section Tabulated physical properties, it seem you did convert Relative density (Specific gravity) into Density (kg/m3). Strictly speaking from the standpoint of physics, only oven dry SG is a true specific gravity (SG) where mass and volume are determined with wood in the same state ( Here are used Green basic SG and air dry 12% MC SG. Dangerous the convertion into kg/m3, I think--Oimabe (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Density (kg/m3) data appears inverted. 12% moisture vs green (>30%) the density for green should be higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The density/specific gravity are technically not the exact same thing as you pointed out, but usually we assume water at room temperature and standard pressure, a density of about 1.00 gram per cubic centimeter, and that's usually good enough for most engineering applications. The conversion from g/cm^3 to kg/m^3 should be correct, multiply by a factor of 1000, but perhaps you're talking about the conversion from specific gravity to density still? Again, for engineering purposes (the most likely application for this table), assuming 1.00 g/cm^3 is typically adequate, and introduces minimal error.

I don't believe the densities are inverted. Most wood floats, and thus typically has a density of less than 1.00 g/cm^3. You appear to be correct though, greener wood is typically associated with higher densities. I'm not sure why my source indicates otherwise, but it appears to be a valid source, perhaps you're referring to a specific type of wood, maybe I typed in the wrong numerical value for some of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlefevre76 (talkcontribs) 17:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are a couple of articles from wood-database explaining specific gravity and dried weight.
Specific Gravity
Average Dried Weight
According to this, there are several ways to calculate SG. Some of these represent impossible conditions for the wood and are useful to scientists, but not to woodworkers. A real piece of dried wood would never have the density given by these methods. For example, the US Forest Products Lab says that their SG value is:
Specific gravity is based on weight when ovendry and volume when green or at 12% moisture content.
wood-database tries to give both SG and realistic density of dried wood, and you'll notice his numbers differ considerably from those from the FPL. For example, American Beech you give as 640 kg/m3 (which you derive from the FPL value of SG=0.64). Wood-database gives 720, or 12.5% higher.
I'm not sure what his source is for these numbers, but to me they seem much more useful than the SG as calculated by the FPL. GregHolmberg (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found some sources for "average dried weight" (mass at 12% MC / volume at 12% MC). Also many other properties.
Hardwoods of North America
Softwoods of North America
From the US Forest Products Laboratory.
Other data can be found in Tropix 7 from the French agricultural research and international cooperation organization, CIRAD. GregHolmberg (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I removed the following paragraph per WP:OR and WP:EDITORIAL,so if anyone believes parts of it should be salvaged they'd need a rewrite and suitable citations. Snizzbut (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is remarkable that the inner heartwood of old trees remains as sound as it usually does, since in many cases it is hundreds, and in a few instances thousands, of years old. Every broken limb or root, or deep wound from fire, insects, or falling timber, may afford an entrance for decay, which, once started, may penetrate to all parts of the trunk. The larvae of many insects bore into the trees and their tunnels remain indefinitely as sources of weakness. Whatever advantages, however, that sapwood may have in this connection are due solely to its relative age and position.

I support your action. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wood is on earth from over 400 million years (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would disagree with saying that wood is carbon-neutral as it would be a bit misleading that using wood as a energy source (i.e. burning wood as a energy sourece) has no impacts on the climate of Earth. Here is a webpage that may explain more : and . Imurmate (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Behavior 2022[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 17 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sophiarobinson (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Gonet99 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022[edit]

copper wood is a type of wood that is as tough as copper and is flammable like wood copper wood was found in a cave in Vietnam This wood has the property of copper and wood not much is know about this wood as of now; Covidspreader (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wood property table is very weird[edit]

The table of properties of different types of wood is very weird currently. Each type of wood is listed twice but has different numbers for most of the columns. This is very confusing and we should clarify what this means. Also, the moisture content column alternates between "green" and "12.00%". I do not know what green means in this context and I doubt all of these species have 12.00% moisture content. We really need to fix this table. (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just discovered that the bamboo properties table has the same double listing thing. In addition, "green" still appears occasionally on the moisture content column, in addition some rows do not have anything there! (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to mean: when green, it has these properties; when 12% moist, it has these other properties. Might be clearer with "rowspan=2" in the first two columns. —Tamfang (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More properties[edit]

I propose adding more properties to the table, specifically:

• Janka hardness

• Elastic (Young's) modulus

• Poisson's strain ratios (two)

• shrink (volume, radial, tangential, and longitudinal)

• Sound radiation co-efficient, a function of the elastic modulus and density.

I have this data on Tonewood#Mechanical properties of tonewoods and I think it would be better to have it here since it is not really specific to use in musical instruments.

Thoughts? Objections? GregHolmberg (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]