Talk:Wood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

It must contain simplest word that can be understand by student.

41.136.73.64 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[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]

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]

Wood
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]

Carbohydrate foam listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

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]

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]

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]

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 (https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2010/fpl_2010_williamson001.pdf). 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]

The Density (kg/m3) data appears inverted. 12% moisture vs green (>30%) the density for green should be higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.77.12.4 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heartwood[edit]

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]

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]

Wood[edit]

Wood is on earth from over 400 million years 223.235.164.85 (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon-Neutral?[edit]

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 : https://www.chathamhouse.org/2017/03/wood-not-carbon-neutral-energy-source and https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/ . Imurmate (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Behavior 2022[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg 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.

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