tooth and nail puzzle

In article <[email protected]>, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 12:10 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, RicodJour
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 7, 11:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector"
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >I was kind of wondering why the wood wouldn't swell around the nail,
> making
>> >> >it all but impossible to extract.
>>
>> >> Because the wood swelling will make the holes *larger*, not smaller.
>>
>> >Why wouldn't the wood swell in all directions?
>>
>> It does -- but it does not swell *uniformly* in all directions, because wood
>> does not have a uniform structure. Its fibers are long and narrow, with the
>> long axis parallel to the trunk of the tree. The extent of tangential
>> dimensional change (parallel to the growth rings) in response to changing
>> moisture content is, as a general rule, approximately double the extent of
>> radial dimensional change (perpendicular to the growth rings), and either one
>> is several orders of magnitude greater than the axial dimensional change
>> (parallel to the trunk of the tree).
>>
>> To put it in somewhat simpler terms: when a piece of wood absorbs moisture,
> it
>> gets wider. It also gets thicker, but proportionately by only about half as
>> much as it increases in width. The length hardly changes at all.
>
>There's no need to put it more simply - I'm more than passably
>familiar with wood properties. It sounds like what you're saying -
>correct me if I'm wrong - is that the wood fibers around the nail are
>somehow different than the wood fibers not next to the nail.

Quite the contrary. I'm saying that they're all the same.

>The wood
>fibers run in the same direction, and the hole is drilled in the same
>direction as well. How can the wood fibers react differently?

They don't.

Suppose for the sake of illustration that the width of the board increases by
ten percent when it's saturated with water; suppose further that we have a
1/4" diameter hole drilled in the middle of a board that's 2.25" wide (1" on
each side of the hole).

The board swells to a total width of 2.25 + 10% = 2.475".
The wood to the left of the hole started out 1" wide, and swells 10% to 1.1".
So does the wood to the right of the hole. Total 2.2" left and right. Leaves
0.275" for the hole, no?

It's *exactly* the same principle as heating a piece of metal to enlarge a
hole for making a friction fit: metal expands when heated, and wood expands
when it gets wet. Holes in metal get larger when heated, and holes in wood get
larger when wet. The only difference is that since wood does not expand at the
same rate in the x and y axes, due to its non-uniform structure, circular
holes in wood become elliptical when they expand, instead of remaining
circular as do holes in metal.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Jul 6, 10:55 pm, "Phil-in-MI" <NO Spam &
[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry, I thought this was the rec.puzzles NG
> I didn't notice this was the rec.woodworking NG.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sorry, I wondered into this NG from rec.woodworking NG.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for your reply and sorry if I posted in the wrong newsgroup.
The puzzle was posed to us as "how do you get the nail out of the
block?" I wonder if boilng and a vise would work for that too?

On Jul 6, 10:51 pm, "Phil-in-MI" <NO Spam &
[email protected]> wrote:
> > Did anyone ever find the correct answer to this puzzle?
>
> >http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=344364
>
> > We just came across this puzzle at work.
>
> > Thanks,
>
> Sorry, I wondered into this NG from rec.woodworking NG.
>
> This is an old-tyme puzzle, that is normally phrased
> How-did-the-nail-get-there-in-the-first-place.
> Lots, and lots of posting on this puzzle, and the solution along with it's
> companion, the wood pencil in the wood block on Wood Working forums, NGs and
> so forth.
>
> (the solution was on the Public TV show, The Woodwright's Shop with Roy
> Underhill a few seasons ago.)
>
> Soak the wood in boiling water for several minutes. (actually, a whole lot
> longer than several minutes!)
> Compress one end (section) of wood in a wood vice, and squeeze to compress.
> (Takes a
> lot of effort, vice must be bolted to workbench. A "put-your-back-into-it"
> type of effort.)
> Wood will remain compressed until re-immersed in boiling water.
> Normally, will return to original size.
>
> Some tips:
> Type of wood does mater, softwood (Pine, Redwood, etc.) is better than
> hardwoods (hickory, maple, white oak, etc.)
> Can be done with Red Oak, but scrap 2x4 Pine is so much cheaper.
> Wood with larger distance between growth rings is better than close dense
> wood growth rings.
> Wood should start off as kiln dried, less than 10% moisture. (Walls of the
> cells
> and all that...)
> Wood grain direction makes a difference (flat straight grain, and NO KNOTS.)
> Vice with hardwood jaws will leave fewer scars to give away the solution.
> The end sections are normally twice the length of the middle sections. (I
> don't know why; IMHO, for looks only.)

Why wouldn't the nail rust and stain the wood? That would certainly
point towards water being involved in your...errr...solution. I
suppose the nail could be stainless steel, but I've never seen a 16d
common stainless nail.

R

On Jul 7, 11:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I was kind of wondering why the wood wouldn't swell around the nail, making
> >it all but impossible to extract.
>
> Because the wood swelling will make the holes *larger*, not smaller.

Why wouldn't the wood swell in all directions?

R

On Jul 7, 12:10 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 7, 11:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >I was kind of wondering why the wood wouldn't swell around the nail, making
> >> >it all but impossible to extract.
>
> >> Because the wood swelling will make the holes *larger*, not smaller.
>
> >Why wouldn't the wood swell in all directions?
>
> It does -- but it does not swell *uniformly* in all directions, because wood
> does not have a uniform structure. Its fibers are long and narrow, with the
> long axis parallel to the trunk of the tree. The extent of tangential
> dimensional change (parallel to the growth rings) in response to changing
> moisture content is, as a general rule, approximately double the extent of
> radial dimensional change (perpendicular to the growth rings), and either one
> is several orders of magnitude greater than the axial dimensional change
> (parallel to the trunk of the tree).
>
> To put it in somewhat simpler terms: when a piece of wood absorbs moisture, it
> gets wider. It also gets thicker, but proportionately by only about half as
> much as it increases in width. The length hardly changes at all.

There's no need to put it more simply - I'm more than passably
familiar with wood properties. It sounds like what you're saying -
correct me if I'm wrong - is that the wood fibers around the nail are
somehow different than the wood fibers not next to the nail. The wood
fibers run in the same direction, and the hole is drilled in the same
direction as well. How can the wood fibers react differently?

R

On Jul 7, 2:01 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jul 7, 12:10 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, RicodJour
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 7, 11:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector"
> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >I was kind of wondering why the wood wouldn't swell around the nail,
> > making
> >> >> >it all but impossible to extract.
>
> >> >> Because the wood swelling will make the holes *larger*, not smaller.
>
> >> >Why wouldn't the wood swell in all directions?
>
> >> It does -- but it does not swell *uniformly* in all directions, because wood
> >> does not have a uniform structure. Its fibers are long and narrow, with the
> >> long axis parallel to the trunk of the tree. The extent of tangential
> >> dimensional change (parallel to the growth rings) in response to changing
> >> moisture content is, as a general rule, approximately double the extent of
> >> radial dimensional change (perpendicular to the growth rings), and either one
> >> is several orders of magnitude greater than the axial dimensional change
> >> (parallel to the trunk of the tree).
>
> >> To put it in somewhat simpler terms: when a piece of wood absorbs moisture,
> > it
> >> gets wider. It also gets thicker, but proportionately by only about half as
> >> much as it increases in width. The length hardly changes at all.
>
> >There's no need to put it more simply - I'm more than passably
> >familiar with wood properties. It sounds like what you're saying -
> >correct me if I'm wrong - is that the wood fibers around the nail are
> >somehow different than the wood fibers not next to the nail.
>
> Quite the contrary. I'm saying that they're all the same.
>
> >The wood
> >fibers run in the same direction, and the hole is drilled in the same
> >direction as well. How can the wood fibers react differently?
>
> They don't.
>
> Suppose for the sake of illustration that the width of the board increases by
> ten percent when it's saturated with water; suppose further that we have a
> 1/4" diameter hole drilled in the middle of a board that's 2.25" wide (1" on
> each side of the hole).
>
> The board swells to a total width of 2.25 + 10% = 2.475".
> The wood to the left of the hole started out 1" wide, and swells 10% to 1.1".
> So does the wood to the right of the hole. Total 2.2" left and right. Leaves
> 0.275" for the hole, no?
>
> It's *exactly* the same principle as heating a piece of metal to enlarge a
> hole for making a friction fit: metal expands when heated, and wood expands
> when it gets wet. Holes in metal get larger when heated, and holes in wood get
> larger when wet. The only difference is that since wood does not expand at the
> same rate in the x and y axes, due to its non-uniform structure, circular
> holes in wood become elliptical when they expand, instead of remaining
> circular as do holes in metal.

I'll argue my point with a very simple test that you can do for
yourself. Drill a hole the exact size of a nail in a piece of wood,
drilling along the grain. Soak the wood overnight. You don't have to
boil it. Try to insert the nail the next morning. The wood will have
expanded, and the hole will have gotten smaller, not larger. The hole
may not be perfectly round, but the net area of the hole will be
smaller. I've done this. Try it, you'll see.

Simple practical tests outweigh theoretical ruminations. Ask Richard
Feynman...well, he's dead, but he'd agree with me.

R

On Jul 7, 7:24 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I'll argue my point with a very simple test that you can do for
> >yourself. Drill a hole the exact size of a nail in a piece of wood,
> >drilling along the grain. Soak the wood overnight. You don't have to
> >boil it. Try to insert the nail the next morning. The wood will have
> >expanded, and the hole will have gotten smaller, not larger.
>
> Nonsense.

Which part of my experience is nonsense? Like I said, try it for
yourself.

> >The hole
> >may not be perfectly round, but the net area of the hole will be
> >smaller. I've done this. Try it, you'll see.
>
> Pardon me for being very skeptical of your claim to have actually done that.
> I'll perform my own test and report the results.

Please do. I wouldn't have it any other way.

BTW, the test was an accident. It was an offcut piece of red oak with
a drilled hole that I'd left outside - yes, I know I should clean up
more carefully. The piece was outside for about a week and there'd
been only a day and a night of rain I think. Out of curiosity I stuck
the same bit into the hole, or tried to, and it wouldn't fit. I could
spin the bit in a little, like I was drilling it, but from your
description it should have slid in easily as the hole could only get
bigger in all dimensions. It was only a partial test as I didn't try
the bit after the piece dried out - I just threw it away.

R

On Jul 7, 9:41 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jul 7, 7:24 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >I'll argue my point with a very simple test that you can do for
> >> >yourself. Drill a hole the exact size of a nail in a piece of wood,
> >> >drilling along the grain. Soak the wood overnight. You don't have to
> >> >boil it. Try to insert the nail the next morning. The wood will have
> >> >expanded, and the hole will have gotten smaller, not larger.
>
> >> Nonsense.
>
> >Which part of my experience is nonsense?
>
> First, in assuming that a sample size of 1 is sufficient for generalization;
> second, in failing to understand all the factors involved -- see below.
>
> > Like I said, try it for yourself.
>
> My experiment is already underway. I drilled a 5/8" hole in a small scrap
> about two hours ago, and dunked it. I measured it with a dial caliper just
> prior to immersion at 0.628" diameter.
>
> I just fished it out -- the hole is visibly elliptical already, and measures
> 0.661" along the long axis, parallel to the growth rings. Note that this
> absolutely contradicts your claim that the hole will shrink.

Basing things on your sample size of one seems to be acceptable to
you. I wonder what I did wrong? :)

> I'll check it again in the morning.
>
> >> >The hole
> >> >may not be perfectly round, but the net area of the hole will be
> >> >smaller. I've done this. Try it, you'll see.
>
> >> Pardon me for being very skeptical of your claim to have actually done that.
> >> I'll perform my own test and report the results.
>
> >Please do. I wouldn't have it any other way.
>
> >BTW, the test was an accident. It was an offcut piece of red oak with
> >a drilled hole that I'd left outside - yes, I know I should clean up
> >more carefully. The piece was outside for about a week and there'd
> >been only a day and a night of rain I think. Out of curiosity I stuck
> >the same bit into the hole, or tried to, and it wouldn't fit. I could
> >spin the bit in a little, like I was drilling it, but from your
> >description it should have slid in easily as the hole could only get
> >bigger in all dimensions. It was only a partial test as I didn't try
> >the bit after the piece dried out - I just threw it away.
>
> In other words -- no systematic testing conducted, just a conclusion drawn
> from examining a sample size of one piece.

I never claimed it was a systematic test, Doug. I'm relating my
experience.

> Did it occur to you that small holes can easily be obstructed by only a
> handful of wood fibers that swell into the hole? The only *valid* test is by
> measuring a hole that's considerably larger than the grain of the wood.

A couple of observations and a couple of questions about your
"systematic" approach.

We _are_ talking about a small hole. Please note the subject line in
this thread, view the picture of the puzzle, and take it from there.
The puzzle uses a 16d nail (0.165") - where did the 5/8" come from?
The nail runs along the grain, as did my accident-sample - is that how
you drilled your hole?
My original point was that the wood will swell in all directions, and
will swell more where it is not restrained - i.e. the hole.
As Eigen pointed out, the smaller dimension in an elliptical hole is
the more critical clearance dimension.

R

Phil-in-MI wrote:

> This type of puzzle is very old. The solution is just as old;
> tried-and-true as it were.
>
> Phil
>
Phil, are you suggesting that we set fire to the wood? ;-)

Bill


--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000754-5, 07/08/2007
Tested on: 7/8/2007 9:29:18 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 7, 11:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >I was kind of wondering why the wood wouldn't swell around the nail,
>> >making
>> >it all but impossible to extract.
>>
>> Because the wood swelling will make the holes *larger*, not smaller.
>
> Why wouldn't the wood swell in all directions?
>
> R
>

It will, and take a bit of compression set before it contracts.

RicodJour <[email protected]> writes:

> Why wouldn't the nail rust and stain the wood?

Can't you just boil the one end? Perhaps wrap the nail with wax. And
you can polish the nail afterwards. It rotates and slides back and
forth. So most of the hidden surface is exposed.

In article <[email protected]>, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 9:41 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Jul 7, 7:24 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I'll argue my point with a very simple test that you can do for
>> >> >yourself. Drill a hole the exact size of a nail in a piece of wood,
>> >> >drilling along the grain. Soak the wood overnight. You don't have to
>> >> >boil it. Try to insert the nail the next morning. The wood will have
>> >> >expanded, and the hole will have gotten smaller, not larger.
>>
>> >> Nonsense.
>>
>> >Which part of my experience is nonsense?
>>
>> First, in assuming that a sample size of 1 is sufficient for generalization;
>> second, in failing to understand all the factors involved -- see below.
>>
>> > Like I said, try it for yourself.
>>
>> My experiment is already underway. I drilled a 5/8" hole in a small scrap
>> about two hours ago, and dunked it. I measured it with a dial caliper just
>> prior to immersion at 0.628" diameter.
>>
>> I just fished it out -- the hole is visibly elliptical already, and measures
>> 0.661" along the long axis, parallel to the growth rings. Note that this
>> absolutely contradicts your claim that the hole will shrink.

This morning, by the way, the dimensions of the hole are 0.674 along the major
axis of the ellipse, and 0.626 along the minor axis.

And the bit that drilled the hole slips easily through it -- falls through, in
fact, without being pushed or pulled.
>
>Basing things on your sample size of one seems to be acceptable to
>you. I wonder what I did wrong? :)

I'll conduct further tests with additional samples, and post the results.
>
>> I'll check it again in the morning.
>>
>> >> >The hole
>> >> >may not be perfectly round, but the net area of the hole will be
>> >> >smaller. I've done this. Try it, you'll see.
>>
>> >> Pardon me for being very skeptical of your claim to have actually done
> that.
>> >> I'll perform my own test and report the results.
>>
>> >Please do. I wouldn't have it any other way.
>>
>> >BTW, the test was an accident. It was an offcut piece of red oak with
>> >a drilled hole that I'd left outside - yes, I know I should clean up
>> >more carefully. The piece was outside for about a week and there'd
>> >been only a day and a night of rain I think. Out of curiosity I stuck
>> >the same bit into the hole, or tried to, and it wouldn't fit. I could
>> >spin the bit in a little, like I was drilling it, but from your
>> >description it should have slid in easily as the hole could only get
>> >bigger in all dimensions. It was only a partial test as I didn't try
>> >the bit after the piece dried out - I just threw it away.
>>
>> In other words -- no systematic testing conducted, just a conclusion drawn
>> from examining a sample size of one piece.
>
>I never claimed it was a systematic test, Doug. I'm relating my
>experience.

And I'm saying that you've drawn an incorrect conclusion from limited
experience, a conclusion that you mistakenly believe to be typical.
>
>> Did it occur to you that small holes can easily be obstructed by only a
>> handful of wood fibers that swell into the hole? The only *valid* test is by
>> measuring a hole that's considerably larger than the grain of the wood.
>
>A couple of observations and a couple of questions about your
>"systematic" approach.
>
>We _are_ talking about a small hole. Please note the subject line in
>this thread, view the picture of the puzzle, and take it from there.
>The puzzle uses a 16d nail (0.165") - where did the 5/8" come from?

Please note the point I raised above: it's not possible to draw valid
conclusions about the behavior of the material, with samples at such small
scales.

>The nail runs along the grain, as did my accident-sample - is that how
>you drilled your hole?

To avoid any possibility of confusion, let's avoid using terms such as "along
the grain" or "across the grain", etc, and instead make specific reference to
the orientation of the tree:

The nail in the puzzle photograph, and of course the holes, is parallel to the
trunk of the tree; that is; axially with respect to the growth rings.

Is that how your sample hole was drilled?

My test hole was drilled radially with respect to the growth rings.

Subsequent tests will use holes drilled radially, tangentially, and axially,
to compare the effects.

>My original point was that the wood will swell in all directions, and
>will swell more where it is not restrained - i.e. the hole.

But that is not correct. As another poster pointed out, when a substance
expands, any two points in it get farther away, without regard to whether they
are separated by solid matter or air.

>As Eigen pointed out, the smaller dimension in an elliptical hole is
>the more critical clearance dimension.

Basically no change -- a difference of 0.002" (three-tenths of one percent)
could easily be a measurement error.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

>
>> Why wouldn't the nail rust and stain the wood?
>
> Can't you just boil the one end? Perhaps wrap the nail with wax. And
> you can polish the nail afterwards. It rotates and slides back and
> forth. So most of the hidden surface is exposed.

Yes, that is what most would do. Just boil the one end.

Aside: the goal is to remove the nail. There is no part of the puzzle's
statement, or motivation for anyone to anticipate, that the nail is to be
re-inserting into puzzle for re-doing the puzzle. The puzzle's nail just
might be a one time use. The entire puzzle just could be a one time
puzzle, based on the puzzle's challenge statement.

The heated water is to soften the cell walls for being crushed.
Re-hydrating the wood cells is not the goal as water is just so difficult to
compress.

Also, the craftsman who made the specific puzzle is (should be?) honor bound
to make a puzzle which can be solved. The nail is in a pre-drilled hole,
which should have a large enough diameter to avoid any swelling problem.

This type of puzzle is very old. The solution is just as old;
tried-and-true as it were.

Phil

In article <[email protected]>, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 11:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >I was kind of wondering why the wood wouldn't swell around the nail, making
>> >it all but impossible to extract.
>>
>> Because the wood swelling will make the holes *larger*, not smaller.
>
>Why wouldn't the wood swell in all directions?

It does -- but it does not swell *uniformly* in all directions, because wood
does not have a uniform structure. Its fibers are long and narrow, with the
long axis parallel to the trunk of the tree. The extent of tangential
dimensional change (parallel to the growth rings) in response to changing
moisture content is, as a general rule, approximately double the extent of
radial dimensional change (perpendicular to the growth rings), and either one
is several orders of magnitude greater than the axial dimensional change
(parallel to the trunk of the tree).

To put it in somewhat simpler terms: when a piece of wood absorbs moisture, it
gets wider. It also gets thicker, but proportionately by only about half as
much as it increases in width. The length hardly changes at all.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Peter:

Yes, it will.

BTW, what I meant to say in my last post: I apologize for the tone of my
reply, which was aimed at non-woodworkers.
In this NG my reply to your original post should have been:
Boiling water --> squeeze in vice --> boiling water.

Everyone who follows this NG would have already known everything else I
wrote.
I suspect many who read this NG were insulted by the tone of my choice of
words.

Phil

>
> Thanks for your reply and sorry if I posted in the wrong newsgroup.
> The puzzle was posed to us as "how do you get the nail out of the
> block?" I wonder if boilng and a vise would work for that too?
>

In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I was kind of wondering why the wood wouldn't swell around the nail, making
>it all but impossible to extract.

Because the wood swelling will make the holes *larger*, not smaller.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'll argue my point with a very simple test that you can do for
>yourself. Drill a hole the exact size of a nail in a piece of wood,
>drilling along the grain. Soak the wood overnight. You don't have to
>boil it. Try to insert the nail the next morning. The wood will have
>expanded, and the hole will have gotten smaller, not larger.

Nonsense.

>The hole
>may not be perfectly round, but the net area of the hole will be
>smaller. I've done this. Try it, you'll see.

Pardon me for being very skeptical of your claim to have actually done that.
I'll perform my own test and report the results.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Sorry, I thought this was the rec.puzzles NG
I didn't notice this was the rec.woodworking NG.

>
> Sorry, I wondered into this NG from rec.woodworking NG.
>

"BillinDetroit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Phil, are you suggesting that we set fire to the wood? ;-)
>
> Bill
>

{taking tooth pick out of mouth}
<sound of sucking teeth with tongue>

{while looking at end of tooth pick}
Well Bill, one could do that, but with it being soaked in boiling water,
might take a bit... and with this heat wave as it is....

{pats down pockets for new toothpick}
But you know, there's been a lot flame in this thread already.
and what with Global Warming and all....
Sure be a lot of bother to set the wood on fire in this heat wave....

{un-wraps new toothpick from greasy spoon}
Yes, I think I am going to vote we just forget about this thread, now the
nail is out. Hell, with this heat wave, the Dog don't even want to play
catch with that old piece of scrap wood.

{sticks toothpick in mouth, and sips a bit of Ice Tea.)
Gosh, this is sure a hot spell we got here.
Yes, Bill, they's been way too much flame in this thread.
All that passion and argument over a piece of scrap wood and an old nail.

But, well you know, if you are going to fire up the BBQ anyway.... What the
hell..

Take care Bill, stay cool.

Phil

In article <[email protected]>, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 7:24 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I'll argue my point with a very simple test that you can do for
>> >yourself. Drill a hole the exact size of a nail in a piece of wood,
>> >drilling along the grain. Soak the wood overnight. You don't have to
>> >boil it. Try to insert the nail the next morning. The wood will have
>> >expanded, and the hole will have gotten smaller, not larger.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
>Which part of my experience is nonsense?

First, in assuming that a sample size of 1 is sufficient for generalization;
second, in failing to understand all the factors involved -- see below.

> Like I said, try it for
>yourself.

My experiment is already underway. I drilled a 5/8" hole in a small scrap
about two hours ago, and dunked it. I measured it with a dial caliper just
prior to immersion at 0.628" diameter.

I just fished it out -- the hole is visibly elliptical already, and measures
0.661" along the long axis, parallel to the growth rings. Note that this
absolutely contradicts your claim that the hole will shrink.

I'll check it again in the morning.
>
>> >The hole
>> >may not be perfectly round, but the net area of the hole will be
>> >smaller. I've done this. Try it, you'll see.
>>
>> Pardon me for being very skeptical of your claim to have actually done that.
>> I'll perform my own test and report the results.
>
>Please do. I wouldn't have it any other way.
>
>BTW, the test was an accident. It was an offcut piece of red oak with
>a drilled hole that I'd left outside - yes, I know I should clean up
>more carefully. The piece was outside for about a week and there'd
>been only a day and a night of rain I think. Out of curiosity I stuck
>the same bit into the hole, or tried to, and it wouldn't fit. I could
>spin the bit in a little, like I was drilling it, but from your
>description it should have slid in easily as the hole could only get
>bigger in all dimensions. It was only a partial test as I didn't try
>the bit after the piece dried out - I just threw it away.

In other words -- no systematic testing conducted, just a conclusion drawn
from examining a sample size of one piece.

Did it occur to you that small holes can easily be obstructed by only a
handful of wood fibers that swell into the hole? The only *valid* test is by
measuring a hole that's considerably larger than the grain of the wood.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 6, 10:51 pm, "Phil-in-MI" <NO Spam &
> [email protected]> wrote:
>> > Did anyone ever find the correct answer to this puzzle?
>>
>> >http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=344364
>>
>> > We just came across this puzzle at work.
>>
>> > Thanks,
>>
>> Sorry, I wondered into this NG from rec.woodworking NG.
>>
>> This is an old-tyme puzzle, that is normally phrased
>> How-did-the-nail-get-there-in-the-first-place.
>> Lots, and lots of posting on this puzzle, and the solution along with
>> it's
>> companion, the wood pencil in the wood block on Wood Working forums, NGs
>> and
>> so forth.
>>
>> (the solution was on the Public TV show, The Woodwright's Shop with Roy
>> Underhill a few seasons ago.)
>>
>> Soak the wood in boiling water for several minutes. (actually, a whole
>> lot
>> longer than several minutes!)
>> Compress one end (section) of wood in a wood vice, and squeeze to
>> compress.
>> (Takes a
>> lot of effort, vice must be bolted to workbench. A
>> "put-your-back-into-it"
>> type of effort.)
>> Wood will remain compressed until re-immersed in boiling water.
>> Normally, will return to original size.
>>
>> Some tips:
>> Type of wood does mater, softwood (Pine, Redwood, etc.) is better than
>> hardwoods (hickory, maple, white oak, etc.)
>> Can be done with Red Oak, but scrap 2x4 Pine is so much cheaper.
>> Wood with larger distance between growth rings is better than close dense
>> wood growth rings.
>> Wood should start off as kiln dried, less than 10% moisture. (Walls of
>> the
>> cells
>> and all that...)
>> Wood grain direction makes a difference (flat straight grain, and NO
>> KNOTS.)
>> Vice with hardwood jaws will leave fewer scars to give away the solution.
>> The end sections are normally twice the length of the middle sections. (I
>> don't know why; IMHO, for looks only.)
>
> Why wouldn't the nail rust and stain the wood? That would certainly
> point towards water being involved in your...errr...solution. I
> suppose the nail could be stainless steel, but I've never seen a 16d
> common stainless nail.
>
> R
>
I was kind of wondering why the wood wouldn't swell around the nail, making
it all but impossible to extract.

"Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> It will, and take a bit of compression set before it contracts.
>
> I don't understand what you mean. Could you explain?
>
Simple, you put the nail in, it will compress the wet fibers to enlarge the
way. It will then contract as it dries, (anisotropically, for Doug) pulling
away from the nail a bit. It'll be a bit more than if you hadn't had to
compress the wet fiber, because you've altered the structure a bit. Wood
folks call it compression set, and it's the principle behind bending which
stays put.

"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:yEPji.24873$BT3.19087@trnddc06...
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Jul 7, 11:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >I was kind of wondering why the wood wouldn't swell around the nail,
>>> >making
>>> >it all but impossible to extract.
>>>
>>> Because the wood swelling will make the holes *larger*, not smaller.
>>
>> Why wouldn't the wood swell in all directions?
>
> It does. Any two points get further apart -- whether it is wood or air
> between them.
>
> Does heating a nut make it clamp tighter to the bolt? No, the threaded
> hole gets larger, making it easier to crack loose a stubborn nut. That's
> what they said in mekanical injineering kollege.
>
> -- Mark

That's not really a fair comparison to what is being discussed. We aren't
heating or cooling the wood. Thermal contraction and expansion is not the
mechanism employed here.

"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Jul 7, 11:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >I was kind of wondering why the wood wouldn't swell around the nail,
>>> >making
>>> >it all but impossible to extract.
>>>
>>> Because the wood swelling will make the holes *larger*, not smaller.
>>
>> Why wouldn't the wood swell in all directions?
>>
>> R
>>
>
> It will, and take a bit of compression set before it contracts.

I don't understand what you mean. Could you explain?

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hZ4ki.1235$m%[email protected]...
>
> Measurements after approximately 13 hours immersion:
> Major axis (tangential to growth rings) 0.674"
> Minor axis (axial to growth rings) 0.626"
>
> The difference of 0.002" (0.3%) axially could easily be a measurement
> error,
> either dry or wet -- the difference of 0.046" (7.3%) tangentially I claim
> to
> be significant.
>

How about if there were an incompressible object in the hole? Think the
wood might squash before the steel?

In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> My experiment is already underway. I drilled a 5/8" hole in a small scrap
>> about two hours ago, and dunked it. I measured it with a dial caliper just
>> prior to immersion at 0.628" diameter.
>>
>> I just fished it out -- the hole is visibly elliptical already, and measures
>> 0.661" along the long axis, parallel to the growth rings. Note that this
>> absolutely contradicts your claim that the hole will shrink.
>>
>So what's it on the short axis? That's really the more important of the
>measurement no?
>
>
>> I'll check it again in the morning.

Measurements after approximately 13 hours immersion:
Major axis (tangential to growth rings) 0.674"
Minor axis (axial to growth rings) 0.626"

The difference of 0.002" (0.3%) axially could easily be a measurement error,
either dry or wet -- the difference of 0.046" (7.3%) tangentially I claim to
be significant.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:yEPji.24873$BT3.19087@trnddc06...
>> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Jul 7, 11:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >I was kind of wondering why the wood wouldn't swell around the nail,
>>>> >making
>>>> >it all but impossible to extract.
>>>>
>>>> Because the wood swelling will make the holes *larger*, not smaller.
>>>
>>> Why wouldn't the wood swell in all directions?
>>
>> It does. Any two points get further apart -- whether it is wood or air
>> between them.
>>
>> Does heating a nut make it clamp tighter to the bolt? No, the threaded
>> hole gets larger, making it easier to crack loose a stubborn nut. That's
>> what they said in mekanical injineering kollege.
>>
>> -- Mark
>
>That's not really a fair comparison to what is being discussed. We aren't
>heating or cooling the wood. Thermal contraction and expansion is not the
>mechanism employed here.
>

The question is the behavior of the holes when the medium expands. The
mechanism of expansion is irrelevant.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>,
RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 11:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >I was kind of wondering why the wood wouldn't swell around the nail,
>> >making
>> >it all but impossible to extract.
>>
>> Because the wood swelling will make the holes *larger*, not smaller.
>
>Why wouldn't the wood swell in all directions?

It does -- but it does not swell *uniformly* in all directions, because wood
does not have a uniform structure. Its fibers are long and narrow, with the
long axis parallel to the trunk of the tree. The extent of tangential
dimensional change (parallel to the growth rings) in response to changing
moisture content is, as a general rule, approximately double the extent of
radial dimensional change (perpendicular to the growth rings), and either
one
is several orders of magnitude greater than the axial dimensional change
(parallel to the trunk of the tree).

****OUCH! My head hurts!

To put it in somewhat simpler terms: when a piece of wood absorbs moisture,
it
gets wider. It also gets thicker, but proportionately by only about half as
much as it increases in width. The length hardly changes at all.


****Thanks... from the old blonde broad.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Jul 7, 7:24 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I'll argue my point with a very simple test that you can do for
>>> >yourself. Drill a hole the exact size of a nail in a piece of wood,
>>> >drilling along the grain. Soak the wood overnight. You don't have to
>>> >boil it. Try to insert the nail the next morning. The wood will have
>>> >expanded, and the hole will have gotten smaller, not larger.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>>Which part of my experience is nonsense?
>
> First, in assuming that a sample size of 1 is sufficient for
> generalization;
> second, in failing to understand all the factors involved -- see below.
>
>> Like I said, try it for
>>yourself.
>
> My experiment is already underway. I drilled a 5/8" hole in a small scrap
> about two hours ago, and dunked it. I measured it with a dial caliper just
> prior to immersion at 0.628" diameter.
>
> I just fished it out -- the hole is visibly elliptical already, and
> measures
> 0.661" along the long axis, parallel to the growth rings. Note that this
> absolutely contradicts your claim that the hole will shrink.
>
So what's it on the short axis? That's really the more important of the
measurement no?


> I'll check it again in the morning.
>>
>>> >The hole
>>> >may not be perfectly round, but the net area of the hole will be
>>> >smaller. I've done this. Try it, you'll see.
>>>
>>> Pardon me for being very skeptical of your claim to have actually done
>>> that.
>>> I'll perform my own test and report the results.
>>
>>Please do. I wouldn't have it any other way.
>>
>>BTW, the test was an accident. It was an offcut piece of red oak with
>>a drilled hole that I'd left outside - yes, I know I should clean up
>>more carefully. The piece was outside for about a week and there'd
>>been only a day and a night of rain I think. Out of curiosity I stuck
>>the same bit into the hole, or tried to, and it wouldn't fit. I could
>>spin the bit in a little, like I was drilling it, but from your
>>description it should have slid in easily as the hole could only get
>>bigger in all dimensions. It was only a partial test as I didn't try
>>the bit after the piece dried out - I just threw it away.
>
> In other words -- no systematic testing conducted, just a conclusion
> drawn
> from examining a sample size of one piece.
>
> Did it occur to you that small holes can easily be obstructed by only a
> handful of wood fibers that swell into the hole? The only *valid* test is
> by
> measuring a hole that's considerably larger than the grain of the wood.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

> Did anyone ever find the correct answer to this puzzle?
>
> http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=344364
>
> We just came across this puzzle at work.
>
> Thanks,
>

Sorry, I wondered into this NG from rec.woodworking NG.

This is an old-tyme puzzle, that is normally phrased
How-did-the-nail-get-there-in-the-first-place.
Lots, and lots of posting on this puzzle, and the solution along with it's
companion, the wood pencil in the wood block on Wood Working forums, NGs and
so forth.

(the solution was on the Public TV show, The Woodwright's Shop with Roy
Underhill a few seasons ago.)

Soak the wood in boiling water for several minutes. (actually, a whole lot
longer than several minutes!)
Compress one end (section) of wood in a wood vice, and squeeze to compress.
(Takes a
lot of effort, vice must be bolted to workbench. A "put-your-back-into-it"
type of effort.)
Wood will remain compressed until re-immersed in boiling water.
Normally, will return to original size.

Some tips:
Type of wood does mater, softwood (Pine, Redwood, etc.) is better than
hardwoods (hickory, maple, white oak, etc.)
Can be done with Red Oak, but scrap 2x4 Pine is so much cheaper.
Wood with larger distance between growth rings is better than close dense
wood growth rings.
Wood should start off as kiln dried, less than 10% moisture. (Walls of the
cells
and all that...)
Wood grain direction makes a difference (flat straight grain, and NO KNOTS.)
Vice with hardwood jaws will leave fewer scars to give away the solution.
The end sections are normally twice the length of the middle sections. (I
don't know why; IMHO, for looks only.)

Phil

"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 7, 11:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >I was kind of wondering why the wood wouldn't swell around the nail,
>> >making
>> >it all but impossible to extract.
>>
>> Because the wood swelling will make the holes *larger*, not smaller.
>
> Why wouldn't the wood swell in all directions?

It does. Any two points get further apart -- whether it is wood or air
between them.

Does heating a nut make it clamp tighter to the bolt? No, the threaded hole
gets larger, making it easier to crack loose a stubborn nut. That's what
they said in mekanical injineering kollege.

-- Mark