his thinks probably goes....
if 20% MC weighs 38lbs /cu ft and green weighs 57lbs /cu ft,
then green weighs 57-38=19 lb more. ok so far?
ok, then 19 is 50% of 38.
so the 57lbs is 38lbs plus 50% of 38lbs (19lbs)
so 38lbs + 50% of 38lbs =38+19=57.
so in a sense, the green (57lbs) is 20% MC plus 50% of the 20% MC.
"Tom Quackenbush" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Quackenbush <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dave Hinz wrote:
>>> John wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>> Only thing I'd caution him on is that the density given is for dry
>>>> wood. Wet, as the logs will be, it'll be much heavier. So one log at
>>>> a time may be his max.
>>>
>>>Right; the book doesn't specify wet or dry. Even still the moisture
>>>content between green and dry hardwood probably doesn't change the
>>>weight by more than 30-40% at most, I would think?
>><snip>
>>
>>Using the figures from:
>> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/weigt-wood-9_821.html
>>
>>20% MC walnut weighs 38 lbs /cu ft (same as your figure), green walnut
>>weighs 57 lbs/ cu ft.
>>
>> So the dry walnut has 81% the weight of green walnut, or looking at
>>it the other way, green walnut weighs 50% more than the dry walnut.
>
> Doh! 38/57 = 67%, NOT 81%
>>
>>R,
>>Tom Q.
>
> --
> Remove bogusinfo to reply.
Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>> Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Bill D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Get a Toyota
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A half ton is a half ton is a half ton. Capacity doesn't care who
>>> made it.
>>>
>>> I've broken ( or fixed ) Toyota's, Nissans, Dodge's, Chevy's, GMC's
>>> and Fords all the same.
>>
>>
>>
>> No they aren't, even of the same make.
>
>
> Let me rephrase. 1000 lbs is 1000 lbs. It doesn't matter what make the
> vehicle is, carrying that kind of weight around all the time will cause
> faster wear or breakage than not carrying that weight around.
>
>> The carying capacity varies all over the place for different models,
>> different makes, and different years.
>
>
> Correct.
>
>> Ask the new car dealer for the specks for that model. What vehicle
>> doesn't have the axle capacity listed on the door (or elsewhere)?
>
>
OOPs. I missed your point!
Doug wrote: Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by
6-8 ft
lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even
haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't
seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
As you're loading, check under the axle for those rubber bumpers
mounted on top of the leaf springs. Stop when they're about 1/2 inch
from the bumperstops. That thing will drive a little funny.... Tom
One at a time if you want to be safe. If you're driving next to me
I would like for you to be safe.
Depending on the distance to travel you can rent a trailer or get a
"rollback" wrecker to haul them for you.
Robert
Doug wrote:
> Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by 6-8 ft
> lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even
> haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't
> seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> So, let's see. Density of Black Walnut, according to "Pocket Ref" by
> Thomas J. Glover, is 38 pounds per cubic foot. So, each foot of log at
> a diameter of 20" is pi*10^2*12 cubic inches, (3770 C.I.), which is 2.18
> cubic feet, which weighs 82.9 pounds. So, a 6' log will weigh ~500
> pounds, an 8' will weigh ~660 pounds. Give or take, unless I screwed
> up. So, one at a time should be fine, two would be pushing it. Three,
> is right out.
>
> Dave Hinz
>
Isn't it amazing how amazed some people are by such simple
back-of-the-envelope math?
Only thing I'd caution him on is that the density given is for dry
wood. Wet, as the logs will be, it'll be much heavier. So one log at
a time may be his max.
Overloading a truck can have some surprising consequences. I remember
putting 16 or 18 bags of concrete mix in the back or my 88" wheelbase
Land Rover once, and discovering as we left the lumberyard that it
would hardly steer. We quickly draped about four of those bags on the
hood instead, and got home OK.
John Martin
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2005 22:34:19 -0700, John <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> >>
> >> So, let's see. Density of Black Walnut, according to "Pocket Ref" by
> >> Thomas J. Glover, is 38 pounds per cubic foot. So, each foot of log at
> >> a diameter of 20" is pi*10^2*12 cubic inches, (3770 C.I.), which is 2.18
> >> cubic feet, which weighs 82.9 pounds. So, a 6' log will weigh ~500
> >> pounds, an 8' will weigh ~660 pounds. Give or take, unless I screwed
> >> up. So, one at a time should be fine, two would be pushing it. Three,
> >> is right out.
>
> > Isn't it amazing how amazed some people are by such simple
> > back-of-the-envelope math?
>
> Yes. Also amazing is when someone will do it, muff it badly, and
> pronounce that Oak weighs 300 pounds per square inch, without applying
> the sanity check. I was mentally hefting chunks of firewood while
> mentally checking my figures, before posting them. Because this is
> Usenet, after all, and if I got it wrong I'd be called on it ;)
>
> > Only thing I'd caution him on is that the density given is for dry
> > wood. Wet, as the logs will be, it'll be much heavier. So one log at
> > a time may be his max.
>
> Right; the book doesn't specify wet or dry. Even still the moisture
> content between green and dry hardwood probably doesn't change the
> weight by more than 30-40% at most, I would think?
>
> > Overloading a truck can have some surprising consequences. I remember
> > putting 16 or 18 bags of concrete mix in the back or my 88" wheelbase
> > Land Rover once, and discovering as we left the lumberyard that it
> > would hardly steer. We quickly draped about four of those bags on the
> > hood instead, and got home OK.
>
> Yup, that's why I suggest one at a time rather than two.
>
> > John Martin
>
> Well, this makes...eight John Martins who I have met. You're just
> behind John Olsen/Olson.
Could be even a bit more than that 30-40%. I think that green walnut
can be 80% or so moisture content, which is based on the oven dry
weight. I'm guessing your 38 pound figure is based on 10% moisture or
thereabouts, so oven dry would be 34, and 80% moisture would add 27
pounds to that.
Eight, huh? You're my first Dave Hinz, but I guess that doesn't come
as much of a surprise.
John Martin
"Mark and Kim Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Max capacity for your truck is 1/2 ton. ( 1000 lbs +/-) Should be
> either in the glove box or the drivers door jam ( or thereabouts.) Most
> vehicles typically have it on a plate in the drivers door area.
> Definitely should be in the owners manual!
The traditional ton rating of trucks has long ago lost any value other than
vague comparative. Just because a truck is called a half ton, or a 150, or
a 1500, or whatever they call them tomorrow, does NOT mean that it can haul
a half ton. In fact, it is probably higher than that, even on an import.
Check the ratings on your truck. Should be in the glove box, or the door
frame, or RTFM.
--
********
Bill Pounds
http://www.billpounds.com
"Pounds on Wood" <[email protected]> writes:
>The traditional ton rating of trucks has long ago lost any value other than
>vague comparative. Just because a truck is called a half ton, or a 150, or
>a 1500, or whatever they call them tomorrow, does NOT mean that it can haul
>a half ton. In fact, it is probably higher than that, even on an import.
I don't believe the original poster's truck is what is considered a 1/2
ton truck. It is smaller than that.
>Check the ratings on your truck. Should be in the glove box, or the door
>frame, or RTFM.
The GVWR is listed on the door post usually, but GVWR opnly helps
determine the load capacity if you know the empty weight of the truck.
Brian Elfert
In article <[email protected]>,
Patriarch <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On 9 Jun 2005 22:34:19 -0700, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Only thing I'd caution him on is that the density given is for dry
>>>> wood. Wet, as the logs will be, it'll be much heavier. So one log
>>>> at a time may be his max.
>>>
>>>Right; the book doesn't specify wet or dry. Even still the moisture
>>>content between green and dry hardwood probably doesn't change the
>>>weight by more than 30-40% at most, I would think?
>>
>> In fact, the specific gravity of walnut when green is *lower* than
>> when kiln-dried to 12%MC [*] -- remember that it shrinks in volume as
>> it dries -- and the OP is making his volume measurements on green
>> wood. He'll be OK.
>>
>> [*] 0.51 green, 0.55 KD12. And it's not just walnut. This is generally
>> true of nearly all North American woods, that the green MC is about
>> 90% that of the KD-12 MC.
>>
>
>OK, so what I thought I understood is all screwed up now. Why wouldn't wet
>(or more accurately, 'green' or 'fresh') wood weigh more than that with 12%
>MC at equilibrium?
>
>The green wood I've moved is heavier. Drying turned objects relies on
>measuring weight loss until it stops. What am I missing here?
Simple, really. The piece *shrinks* as the moisture content goes down.
Total weight goes down, *but* depending on rate of shrinkage, weight per
_unit_of_volume_ does 'something different'.
On 08 Jun 2005 16:57:17 EDT, Mark and Kim Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
>>Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by 6-8 ft
>>lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even
>>haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't
>>seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
>>
> Max capacity for your truck is 1/2 ton. ( 1000 lbs +/-) Should be
> either in the glove box or the drivers door jam ( or thereabouts.) Most
> vehicles typically have it on a plate in the drivers door area.
> Definitely should be in the owners manual!
So, let's see. Density of Black Walnut, according to "Pocket Ref" by
Thomas J. Glover, is 38 pounds per cubic foot. So, each foot of log at
a diameter of 20" is pi*10^2*12 cubic inches, (3770 C.I.), which is 2.18
cubic feet, which weighs 82.9 pounds. So, a 6' log will weigh ~500
pounds, an 8' will weigh ~660 pounds. Give or take, unless I screwed
up. So, one at a time should be fine, two would be pushing it. Three,
is right out.
Dave Hinz
P.S. I think this is a drive-by gloat as well, yes? In which case, I'm
obliged to contribute a "you suck".
On 8 Jun 2005 16:01:18 -0700, Doug <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave, I think that is extremely funny: "A drive-by gloat!" Yeah I
> suppose it is. Yet it won't be if I snap a leaf spring...
> Thanks for the laugh and the valuabe feeback though!
I assure you, that's not my original term by any means, but it seemed
especially appropriate in this case.
On 9 Jun 2005 10:22:05 -0700, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>So, one at a time should be fine, two would be pushing it. Three,
>>is right out.
>
> That's a reference to the Book of Armaments, is it not?
Well spotted, noble sir.
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:23:24 GMT, Patrick Conroy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> Three, is right out.
>
>
> A Reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20:
>
> Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying,
(snip)
Yes, well, sorry, I have a cold.
On 9 Jun 2005 22:34:19 -0700, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> So, let's see. Density of Black Walnut, according to "Pocket Ref" by
>> Thomas J. Glover, is 38 pounds per cubic foot. So, each foot of log at
>> a diameter of 20" is pi*10^2*12 cubic inches, (3770 C.I.), which is 2.18
>> cubic feet, which weighs 82.9 pounds. So, a 6' log will weigh ~500
>> pounds, an 8' will weigh ~660 pounds. Give or take, unless I screwed
>> up. So, one at a time should be fine, two would be pushing it. Three,
>> is right out.
> Isn't it amazing how amazed some people are by such simple
> back-of-the-envelope math?
Yes. Also amazing is when someone will do it, muff it badly, and
pronounce that Oak weighs 300 pounds per square inch, without applying
the sanity check. I was mentally hefting chunks of firewood while
mentally checking my figures, before posting them. Because this is
Usenet, after all, and if I got it wrong I'd be called on it ;)
> Only thing I'd caution him on is that the density given is for dry
> wood. Wet, as the logs will be, it'll be much heavier. So one log at
> a time may be his max.
Right; the book doesn't specify wet or dry. Even still the moisture
content between green and dry hardwood probably doesn't change the
weight by more than 30-40% at most, I would think?
> Overloading a truck can have some surprising consequences. I remember
> putting 16 or 18 bags of concrete mix in the back or my 88" wheelbase
> Land Rover once, and discovering as we left the lumberyard that it
> would hardly steer. We quickly draped about four of those bags on the
> hood instead, and got home OK.
Yup, that's why I suggest one at a time rather than two.
> John Martin
Well, this makes...eight John Martins who I have met. You're just
behind John Olsen/Olson.
On 6/8/2005 4:34 PM Doug mumbled something about the following:
> Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by 6-8 ft
> lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even
> haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't
> seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
>
2 logs that size in my Ram 1500 was quite a load. I wouldn't try more
than one in the Nissan.
On 6/9/2005 2:53 PM Tim Douglass mumbled something about the following:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 06:26:19 -0400, "Norman D. Crow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Then there was the full size P/U I saw on I-5 in CA. Had three rolls of
>>carpet hanging out the back, front tires just skimming the surface, and
>>every little bump they'd leave the ground.
>
>
> Every Fall there are numerous 1/2 ton P/U around here sitting on the
> side of the road loaded with a cord and half of green wood and a
> broken axle. "If it fits - I can haul it" seems to be the prevailing
> philosophy.
You wouldn't happen to live in Georgia, now, would you? :)
--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
SLUG
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:30:41 -0400, "Norman D. Crow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
><snip>
>
>> The first trip we took to the forest for turning wood last month, my wife
>> wanted
>> to keep loading the truck but I chickened out...
>> We had a LOT of 10" to 14" rounds, maybe 2" long, stacked pretty well in
>> the
>> bed... it didn't LOOK like that much, but estimating the average weight
>> (which
>> felt heavier each time I put one on the truck) I figured that we had at
>> least
>> 800 pounds of wet wood loaded, even though there was room for about 6 more
>> rounds..
>>
>> I kept thinking about the long down grade on the way home and the turns on
>> it...
>> pictures of light front end, blowing out rear tire, etc... it just isn't
>> worth
>> risking lives or equipment..
>>
>>
>
>2" long? Whatcha making, plates?
hmm... maybe wood table saw blades? *g*
thanks for catching that, it was supposed to be 2'
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 21:10:18 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Being that your's is a "small pickup" and not a "half-ton", you'll
>probably find the payload to be around 900 lbs.
Actually "small" pickups like Fronties and Tacomas usually can deal
with quite a bit more than 900 pounds.
The '04 V6 Frontier King Cab 4x4 capacity is 1164 according to
Edmunds.
The same site lists an '04 Taco V6 4x4 extra cab capacity as over
1500. My '05 V6 4x4 Access Cab is spec'd at 1400.
Barry
Timothy Drouillard wrote:
>his thinks probably goes....
>
>if 20% MC weighs 38lbs /cu ft and green weighs 57lbs /cu ft,
>
>then green weighs 57-38=19 lb more. ok so far?
>
>ok, then 19 is 50% of 38.
>
>so the 57lbs is 38lbs plus 50% of 38lbs (19lbs)
>
>so 38lbs + 50% of 38lbs =38+19=57.
>
>so in a sense, the green (57lbs) is 20% MC plus 50% of the 20% MC.
Him is me.
The way you described is how I arrived at the 50% figure. From the
point of view of the smaller figure, so to speak.
Just as valid is looking at it using the larger figure as the point
of reference, which gives 67%. Unfortunately, I first said 81% instead
of 67%. I should 've caught that, it's a pretty obvious mistake.
NO EXCUSE, SIR! <g>
R,
Tom Q.
--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.
Tom Quackenbush <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dave Hinz wrote:
>> John wrote:
><snip>
>
>>> Only thing I'd caution him on is that the density given is for dry
>>> wood. Wet, as the logs will be, it'll be much heavier. So one log at
>>> a time may be his max.
>>
>>Right; the book doesn't specify wet or dry. Even still the moisture
>>content between green and dry hardwood probably doesn't change the
>>weight by more than 30-40% at most, I would think?
><snip>
>
>Using the figures from:
> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/weigt-wood-9_821.html
>
>20% MC walnut weighs 38 lbs /cu ft (same as your figure), green walnut
>weighs 57 lbs/ cu ft.
>
> So the dry walnut has 81% the weight of green walnut, or looking at
>it the other way, green walnut weighs 50% more than the dry walnut.
Doh! 38/57 = 67%, NOT 81%
>
>R,
>Tom Q.
--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.
Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
> Bill D wrote:
>
>> Get a Toyota
>>
>>
>>
>
> A half ton is a half ton is a half ton. Capacity doesn't care who made it.
>
> I've broken ( or fixed ) Toyota's, Nissans, Dodge's, Chevy's, GMC's and
> Fords all the same.
No they aren't, even of the same make. The
carying capacity varies all over the place for
different models, different makes, and different
years. Ask the new car dealer for the specks for
that model. What vehicle doesn't have the axle
capacity listed on the door (or elsewhere)?
no problem
"Tom Quackenbush" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Timothy Drouillard wrote:
>
>>his thinks probably goes....
>>
>>if 20% MC weighs 38lbs /cu ft and green weighs 57lbs /cu ft,
>>
>>then green weighs 57-38=19 lb more. ok so far?
>>
>>ok, then 19 is 50% of 38.
>>
>>so the 57lbs is 38lbs plus 50% of 38lbs (19lbs)
>>
>>so 38lbs + 50% of 38lbs =38+19=57.
>>
>>so in a sense, the green (57lbs) is 20% MC plus 50% of the 20% MC.
>
> Him is me.
>
> The way you described is how I arrived at the 50% figure. From the
> point of view of the smaller figure, so to speak.
>
> Just as valid is looking at it using the larger figure as the point
> of reference, which gives 67%. Unfortunately, I first said 81% instead
> of 67%. I should 've caught that, it's a pretty obvious mistake.
>
> NO EXCUSE, SIR! <g>
>
> R,
> Tom Q.
>
> --
> Remove bogusinfo to reply.
In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9 Jun 2005 22:34:19 -0700, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Only thing I'd caution him on is that the density given is for dry
>> wood. Wet, as the logs will be, it'll be much heavier. So one log at
>> a time may be his max.
>
>Right; the book doesn't specify wet or dry. Even still the moisture
>content between green and dry hardwood probably doesn't change the
>weight by more than 30-40% at most, I would think?
In fact, the specific gravity of walnut when green is *lower* than when
kiln-dried to 12%MC [*] -- remember that it shrinks in volume as it dries --
and the OP is making his volume measurements on green wood. He'll be OK.
[*] 0.51 green, 0.55 KD12. And it's not just walnut. This is generally true of
nearly all North American woods, that the green MC is about 90% that of the
KD-12 MC.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Dave Hinz wrote:
> John wrote:
<snip>
>> Only thing I'd caution him on is that the density given is for dry
>> wood. Wet, as the logs will be, it'll be much heavier. So one log at
>> a time may be his max.
>
>Right; the book doesn't specify wet or dry. Even still the moisture
>content between green and dry hardwood probably doesn't change the
>weight by more than 30-40% at most, I would think?
<snip>
Using the figures from:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/weigt-wood-9_821.html
20% MC walnut weighs 38 lbs /cu ft (same as your figure), green walnut
weighs 57 lbs/ cu ft.
So the dry walnut has 81% the weight of green walnut, or looking at
it the other way, green walnut weighs 50% more than the dry walnut.
R,
Tom Q.
--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
>> A half ton is a half ton is a half ton. Capacity doesn't care who
>> made it.
>>
>> I've broken ( or fixed ) Toyota's, Nissans, Dodge's, Chevy's, GMC's
>> and Fords all the same.
>
> No they aren't, even of the same make. The
> carying capacity varies all over the place for
> different models, different makes, and different
> years.
You are quite correct. The Ford F150, for instance, has at least
6 different weight ratings, depending on whether it's 2 or 4
wheel drive, std or extended cab, short or long bed (the 4x4
extended cab having the lowest rating). All of those, of course,
are "half-ton" models. (mine is rated 1700lbs, incidently, which
is pretty generous for a "half ton").
To the OP: Edmunds.com gives specs for almost everything...look
in their used car section and you can find at least the last 5
years worth of models.
Being that your's is a "small pickup" and not a "half-ton", you'll
probably find the payload to be around 900 lbs. You _should_
subtract your weight from that to find what you can put in the
bed, altho for a short haul you can ignore that.
John
Tim Douglass <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
> Every Fall there are numerous 1/2 ton P/U around here sitting on the
> side of the road loaded with a cord and half of green wood and a
> broken axle. "If it fits - I can haul it" seems to be the prevailing
> philosophy.
>
My youngest son blew a head gasket helping a friend bring home a load of
green oak firewood that way, several years back.
$1400 for a load of 'free wood', that someone else got to burn. Some
lessons are more expensive than others.
Thinking about it, that was the same trip where they had my new truck too,
and managed to back over a steel landscape spike, and tear up an expensive
tire...
To the OP: Rent a trailer. Preferably one that has a power dump feature.
Patriarch
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 9 Jun 2005 22:34:19 -0700, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Only thing I'd caution him on is that the density given is for dry
>>> wood. Wet, as the logs will be, it'll be much heavier. So one log
>>> at a time may be his max.
>>
>>Right; the book doesn't specify wet or dry. Even still the moisture
>>content between green and dry hardwood probably doesn't change the
>>weight by more than 30-40% at most, I would think?
>
> In fact, the specific gravity of walnut when green is *lower* than
> when kiln-dried to 12%MC [*] -- remember that it shrinks in volume as
> it dries -- and the OP is making his volume measurements on green
> wood. He'll be OK.
>
> [*] 0.51 green, 0.55 KD12. And it's not just walnut. This is generally
> true of nearly all North American woods, that the green MC is about
> 90% that of the KD-12 MC.
>
OK, so what I thought I understood is all screwed up now. Why wouldn't wet
(or more accurately, 'green' or 'fresh') wood weigh more than that with 12%
MC at equilibrium?
The green wood I've moved is heavier. Drying turned objects relies on
measuring weight loss until it stops. What am I missing here?
Patriarch
Yes, 1000 lb, but evenly distributed in the bed, like sand. Even the six
footers will move the center toward the back of the bed, I expect. An 8
footer will really hit the back axle.
I'd consider tenting a solid trailer that can carry them all at once and
save the truck.
Two of them could well bend the bed sides, if the width is not adequate.
BTW, if you haul it to the mill the next move will be easier.
Wilson
"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by 6-8 ft
> lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even
> haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't
> seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
>
Tom Quackenbush wrote:
> Not much, I don't think. Green wood certainly weighs more seasoned
>wood, and it's also less dense (AFAIK - there may be some exceptions,
>but I doubt it).
Jeez, I need to hire a proofreader.
Should have read:
Green wood certainly weighs more than seasoned wood, and it's also
MORE dense (AFAIK - there may be some exceptions, but I doubt it).
> I don't doubt Doug's SG numbers at all, but there are several
>flavors of SG when dealing with wood. Some don't reflect the change of
>weight between green and dry wood, but only the change in volume.
>
> E.g., http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-156.html lists the
>specific gravities for walnut as .51 / .56 (oven dry / green). The
>weight used to calculate those particular SGs is oven dry in _both_
>cases.The volume used is oven dry volume & green volume, respectively.
>IOW, those different SGs reflect the change in volume but not the
>change in weight. I don't know how the SG figures that Doug quoted
>were derived, but I suspect that it was similar to this example.
>
> "The Encyclopedia of Wood" has a few pages that discuss density
>measurements of wood. Also, online:
>
>"Specific Gravity, Moisture Content, and Density Relationship for
>Wood"
>http://www.woodweb.com/knowledge_base/fpl_pdfs/fplgtr76.pdf
>
>and
>
>"Wood handbook--Wood as an engineering material"
>http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/fplgtr113.htm
>
>specifically chapter 3, but the other chapters are good, too.
>
> Too much information? <g>
>
>R,
>Tom Q.
--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.
"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by 6-8 ft
> lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even
> haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't
> seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
>
Perhaps you should post to rec.woodhauling. Those guys know their stuff.
:-P
Doug wrote:
>Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by 6-8 ft
>lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even
>haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't
>seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
>
>
>
Max capacity for your truck is 1/2 ton. ( 1000 lbs +/-) Should be
either in the glove box or the drivers door jam ( or thereabouts.) Most
vehicles typically have it on a plate in the drivers door area.
Definitely should be in the owners manual!
Dave Hinz wrote:
>On 08 Jun 2005 16:57:17 EDT, Mark and Kim Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Doug wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by 6-8 ft
>>>lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even
>>>haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't
>>>seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Max capacity for your truck is 1/2 ton. ( 1000 lbs +/-) Should be
>>either in the glove box or the drivers door jam ( or thereabouts.) Most
>>vehicles typically have it on a plate in the drivers door area.
>>Definitely should be in the owners manual!
>>
>>
>
>So, let's see. Density of Black Walnut, according to "Pocket Ref" by
>Thomas J. Glover, is 38 pounds per cubic foot. So, each foot of log at
>a diameter of 20" is pi*10^2*12 cubic inches, (3770 C.I.), which is 2.18
>cubic feet, which weighs 82.9 pounds. So, a 6' log will weigh ~500
>pounds, an 8' will weigh ~660 pounds. Give or take, unless I screwed
>up. So, one at a time should be fine, two would be pushing it. Three,
>is right out.
>
>Dave Hinz
>
>P.S. I think this is a drive-by gloat as well, yes? In which case, I'm
>obliged to contribute a "you suck".
>
>
>
If it were me, I would just haul two at a time. It's a one time job and
probably won't affect the vehicle any. The extra 200 lbs would most
likely be within the test load limits that were engineered into the
truck. If you were to haul 1200 lbs plus on a daily basis ( even 1000
lbs ) eventually your suspension would sag, "U" joints wear, trans and
clutch wear, engine along with everything else and the life of
components reduced. Like the owners manual would tell you, you'll want
to change the oil more often in dustier / rougher conditions as opposed
to metro driving. This is because constant rough conditions will cause
more wear. So two or three trips with a 1200 lb load probably won't
affect the vehicle any. You will want to take into consideration
stopping distances, though.
Pounds on Wood wrote:
>"Mark and Kim Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Max capacity for your truck is 1/2 ton. ( 1000 lbs +/-) Should be
>>either in the glove box or the drivers door jam ( or thereabouts.) Most
>>vehicles typically have it on a plate in the drivers door area.
>>Definitely should be in the owners manual!
>>
>>
>
>The traditional ton rating of trucks has long ago lost any value other than
>vague comparative. Just because a truck is called a half ton, or a 150, or
>a 1500, or whatever they call them tomorrow, does NOT mean that it can haul
>a half ton. In fact, it is probably higher than that, even on an import.
>
>Check the ratings on your truck. Should be in the glove box, or the door
>frame, or RTFM.
>
>--
>********
>Bill Pounds
>http://www.billpounds.com
>
>
>
>
Read again. I didn't say his truck was a half ton. I said his truck
has a 1/2 ton capacity. Depending on his model ( King Cab, Crew Cab,
Short Bed, Long Bed ), 915 lbs to 1146 lbs max payload to be more specific.
George E. Cawthon wrote:
> Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
>
>> Bill D wrote:
>>
>>> Get a Toyota
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A half ton is a half ton is a half ton. Capacity doesn't care who
>> made it.
>>
>> I've broken ( or fixed ) Toyota's, Nissans, Dodge's, Chevy's, GMC's
>> and Fords all the same.
>
>
> No they aren't, even of the same make.
Let me rephrase. 1000 lbs is 1000 lbs. It doesn't matter what make the
vehicle is, carrying that kind of weight around all the time will cause
faster wear or breakage than not carrying that weight around.
> The carying capacity varies all over the place for different models,
> different makes, and different years.
Correct.
> Ask the new car dealer for the specks for that model. What vehicle
> doesn't have the axle capacity listed on the door (or elsewhere)?
"Knotbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One at a time if you want to be safe. If you're driving next to me
> I would like for you to be safe.
> Depending on the distance to travel you can rent a trailer or get a
> "rollback" wrecker to haul them for you.
> Robert
>
> Doug wrote:
>> Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by 6-8 ft
>> lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even
>> haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't
>> seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
>
Lots of good comments and suggestions. My questions are, how are you getting
them loaded/unloaded, and how far do you have to haul them? If you've got a
front end loader or a backhoe to hoist them in, and they don't stretch the
bed width, go for 2 @ a time if it's a short haul. If you're using
muscle/winches, etc., one @ a time should be plenty, give you a chance to
rest during the haul. If it's a short haul over decent road, go for 2, if
it's rough travel or a long haul, stick with 1. What do YOU feel comfortable
with? I've done short(15-20mi) hauls with my old '89 F150 full of sand,
sitting right on the stop bumpers, just took it easy.
Just as long as it doesn't look like the Toyota I saw once. Had a cap on it,
but they were headed into a city with a load of cantaloupe(sp?). Bed
completely filled & piled as high as they could get under the cap. Rear
bumper almost dragging the ground, rear tires squashed out to about 1/2
normal size. Wishing he would have to pull into the scale house like the
real trucks.
Then there was the full size P/U I saw on I-5 in CA. Had three rolls of
carpet hanging out the back, front tires just skimming the surface, and
every little bump they'd leave the ground.
--
Nahmie
The greatest headaches are those we cause ourselves.
Dave Hinz wrote:
>On 9 Jun 2005 10:22:05 -0700, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>So, one at a time should be fine, two would be pushing it. Three,
>>>is right out.
>>>
>>>
>>That's a reference to the Book of Armaments, is it not?
>>
>>
>
>Well spotted, noble sir.
>
>
>
Ni!
"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>
> The first trip we took to the forest for turning wood last month, my wife
> wanted
> to keep loading the truck but I chickened out...
> We had a LOT of 10" to 14" rounds, maybe 2" long, stacked pretty well in
> the
> bed... it didn't LOOK like that much, but estimating the average weight
> (which
> felt heavier each time I put one on the truck) I figured that we had at
> least
> 800 pounds of wet wood loaded, even though there was room for about 6 more
> rounds..
>
> I kept thinking about the long down grade on the way home and the turns on
> it...
> pictures of light front end, blowing out rear tire, etc... it just isn't
> worth
> risking lives or equipment..
>
>
2" long? Whatcha making, plates?
--
Nahmie
The greatest headaches are those we cause ourselves.
"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:30:41 -0400, "Norman D. Crow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> The first trip we took to the forest for turning wood last month, my
>>> wife
>>> wanted
>>> to keep loading the truck but I chickened out...
>>> We had a LOT of 10" to 14" rounds, maybe 2" long, stacked pretty well in
<snip->
>>2" long? Whatcha making, plates?
>
> hmm... maybe wood table saw blades? *g*
>
> thanks for catching that, it was supposed to be 2'
>
I knew that! Just couldn't resist!
--
Nahmie
The greatest headaches are those we cause ourselves.
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:53:20 -0700, Tim Douglass <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 06:26:19 -0400, "Norman D. Crow"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Then there was the full size P/U I saw on I-5 in CA. Had three rolls of
>>carpet hanging out the back, front tires just skimming the surface, and
>>every little bump they'd leave the ground.
>
>Every Fall there are numerous 1/2 ton P/U around here sitting on the
>side of the road loaded with a cord and half of green wood and a
>broken axle. "If it fits - I can haul it" seems to be the prevailing
>philosophy.
yeah... same mind set as " it must be ok to write checks, there are lots of them
left in the checkbook"..
The first trip we took to the forest for turning wood last month, my wife wanted
to keep loading the truck but I chickened out...
We had a LOT of 10" to 14" rounds, maybe 2" long, stacked pretty well in the
bed... it didn't LOOK like that much, but estimating the average weight (which
felt heavier each time I put one on the truck) I figured that we had at least
800 pounds of wet wood loaded, even though there was room for about 6 more
rounds..
I kept thinking about the long down grade on the way home and the turns on it...
pictures of light front end, blowing out rear tire, etc... it just isn't worth
risking lives or equipment..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:12:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Philip Hallstrom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>... noting that that weight usually
>>includes the occupants, not just the bed...
>
>For some folks you see at the Borg, that leaves just enough cargo capacity in
>a half-ton truck for a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread.... :-b
hey! I resemble that remark!!
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 10:02:11 -0700, mac davis
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8 Jun 2005 13:34:35 -0700, "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by 6-8 ft
>>lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even
>>haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't
>>seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
>
>well, you have maybe a "half ton" load rating... but probably a 5,000 to 7,000
>max tow weight...
>I'd borrow or rent a trailer... YMMV
>
>
>mac
Find a friend with a boat and try to schedule use on a day he will be
out boating. Even a relatively small boat trailer will have a 3,000 lb
rating. I have hualed several 30' or longer telephone poles on mine
with little problem although at that length you tend to have negative
tongue weight - not a good thing. With 8' to 10' logs that should not
be an issue.
Dave Hall
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 06:26:19 -0400, "Norman D. Crow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Then there was the full size P/U I saw on I-5 in CA. Had three rolls of
>carpet hanging out the back, front tires just skimming the surface, and
>every little bump they'd leave the ground.
Every Fall there are numerous 1/2 ton P/U around here sitting on the
side of the road loaded with a cord and half of green wood and a
broken axle. "If it fits - I can haul it" seems to be the prevailing
philosophy.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Three, is right out.
A Reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20:
Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless
this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in
thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and
toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals
... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must
count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of
the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou
count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out.
Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then
lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who,
being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
Patriarch wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In fact, the specific gravity of walnut when green is *lower* than
>> when kiln-dried to 12%MC [*] -- remember that it shrinks in volume as
>> it dries -- and the OP is making his volume measurements on green
>> wood. He'll be OK.
>>
>> [*] 0.51 green, 0.55 KD12. And it's not just walnut. This is generally
>> true of nearly all North American woods, that the green MC is about
>> 90% that of the KD-12 MC.
>
>OK, so what I thought I understood is all screwed up now. Why wouldn't wet
>(or more accurately, 'green' or 'fresh') wood weigh more than that with 12%
>MC at equilibrium?
>
>The green wood I've moved is heavier. Drying turned objects relies on
>measuring weight loss until it stops. What am I missing here?
Not much, I don't think. Green wood certainly weighs more seasoned
wood, and it's also less dense (AFAIK - there may be some exceptions,
but I doubt it).
I don't doubt Doug's SG numbers at all, but there are several
flavors of SG when dealing with wood. Some don't reflect the change of
weight between green and dry wood, but only the change in volume.
E.g., http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-156.html lists the
specific gravities for walnut as .51 / .56 (oven dry / green). The
weight used to calculate those particular SGs is oven dry in _both_
cases.The volume used is oven dry volume & green volume, respectively.
IOW, those different SGs reflect the change in volume but not the
change in weight. I don't know how the SG figures that Doug quoted
were derived, but I suspect that it was similar to this example.
"The Encyclopedia of Wood" has a few pages that discuss density
measurements of wood. Also, online:
"Specific Gravity, Moisture Content, and Density Relationship for
Wood"
http://www.woodweb.com/knowledge_base/fpl_pdfs/fplgtr76.pdf
and
"Wood handbook--Wood as an engineering material"
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/fplgtr113.htm
specifically chapter 3, but the other chapters are good, too.
Too much information? <g>
R,
Tom Q.
--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.
On 8 Jun 2005 13:34:35 -0700, "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by 6-8 ft
>lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even
>haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't
>seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
well, you have maybe a "half ton" load rating... but probably a 5,000 to 7,000
max tow weight...
I'd borrow or rent a trailer... YMMV
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On 2005-06-08, Doug <[email protected]> wrote:
> Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by 6-8 ft
> lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even
> haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't
> seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
http://www.carsdirect.com/research/nissan/frontier/2004/standard
Pick your specific model, then click specs...
scroll down and you'll find it... noting that that weight usually
includes the occupants, not just the bed...
-philip
On 2005-06-09, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Philip Hallstrom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>... noting that that weight usually
>>includes the occupants, not just the bed...
>
> For some folks you see at the Borg, that leaves just enough cargo capacity in
> a half-ton truck for a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread.... :-b
Might be true for trucks, but those sedans can carry quite a bit if tied
down right!
http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/Workshop/Lumber-Car-A.jpg
:-)
In article <[email protected]>, Philip Hallstrom <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>... noting that that weight usually
>includes the occupants, not just the bed...
For some folks you see at the Borg, that leaves just enough cargo capacity in
a half-ton truck for a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread.... :-b
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?