i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and white oak
is redder wood
i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned
i was considering getting some red oak firewaood but may pass on it
some places just say oak firewood for sale and no more
fyi boat builders i think like white oak more due to lower porosity
On 1/15/2016 3:06 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:78OdnfdARpUi3ATLnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]:
>
>> I always thought that the live oaks were probably some type of white oak.
>
> The tree that's usually called a "live oak" is a white oak.
> I think there are some red oaks which are evergreen.
Well that makes things confusing. LOL
It is common knowledge, common or not, that a live oak is called that
because it's leaves are always green AND leaves only fall off in the
Spring when the new leaves and pollen pushes the old green leaves off.
A real PIA as you can't leave those leaves on the ground very long all.
The choke the new spring growth in the yard.
So now you say that there is a Red Oak that is evergreen that might
categorize it as a Live Oak that is typically a White Oak. would those
be Pink Oaks? ;~)
>
> Just wait until the Comet gets to Black Oak. There are three
> of them in the US, two are red and one is white.
Sounds just like the scenario that I mentioned above.
>
> John
>
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:07:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/17/2016 9:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 1/16/2016 2:31 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Funny how you take things for granted. I did not notice much up until I
>>> bought a decent 35mm camera in 1976. Then and now I look at things much
>>> differently.
>>
>> We see a lot, but comprehend little. Cameras change the way you see
>> things. Especially once you learns what "depth of field" is and how to
>> control it. That was a big step in my photography.
>
>
>I took a physics class in college and several of the classes covered
>"light". Several years before getting my first decent
> camera, a Canon TX, followed by an AE-1, A-1, EOS 659, EOS 630 and
>finally the leap to digital, I knew all about hows and whys on the
>filtering of light and exposure.
I had a Canon FTb when I was in college. I put around 20-36exp rolls
of Tri-X and perhaps 10 x 20exp rolls of infrared B&W though it a
week. After I graduated, some moron swiped it (and everything else of
value in our apartment). I replaced it with a AE-1 that I absolutely
hated. Too automatic and too difficult to use manually (no match
needle but that was only the obvious loss).
In later years I bought a bunch of very nice black-body FTbs and
lenses that cost more than my annual salary, at the time. Of course I
generally use my cell phone as a camera now. ;-)
>
>I sort'a feel sorry for those that never had manual focus or manual
>metering.
+1!
Martin Eastburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have half a dozen of these beauties (in the winter). However,
> they constantly shed leaves so it seems. Come spring off goes the
> winter set as the new set starts to pull in energy. Likewise in the
> Fall, the leave change out again - never all at once, but half and half.
> If rainfall is late, the leaves stay on - still working until a
> replacement set can be grown.
Live oaks keep their leaves all through summer, fall, and winter. And they
stay green until they fall off of the tree in the spring. They are
immediately replaced by new leaves. The falling off and new replacement all
takes place in about 2- 3 weeks.
>
> Interesting tree. The big Burr oak - Had one but it died in a storm.
> I think it might have rotted out with to much water. They are wide
> canopies something like ? 80 feet! ? From what I recall from the tag.
> I could grow several, but I want more than 3 or so trees!
>
>
I'll try to come up with a good open place for all to see.
I'm hoping to re-saw some to make a small box or something neat.
A clipboard or something.
Martin
On 1/15/2016 9:52 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/15/2016 9:16 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>> I have bold after bolt of this strong figure.
>> The waves have maybe 1" or 1.5" wave lengths. Running up/down the tree.
> ...
>
> Interesting. Would be neat to see some pichurs if you're so inclined to
> post some somewhere.
>
> --
>
"Electric Comet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and white
> oak
> is redder wood
>
> i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned
> i was considering getting some red oak firewaood but may pass on it
>
> some places just say oak firewood for sale and no more
>
> fyi boat builders i think like white oak more due to lower porosity
>
In my experience red oak has a reddish tinge to the wood colour, while white
oak lacks the red and is more brown. You can see photos of the woods if you
Google.
I am certain that boat builders do not like red oak because it will turn
black when it gets soaked especially around fasteners, as they react with
the tannin in the wood.
Regarding smoke, I have no idea. Firewood sellers probably don't know nor
care about the differences. For firewood, the heavier the wood, more heat is
released by the wood. This is why high density woods are prized for burning
and are often more expensive.
On 1/13/2016 4:32 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>
> i find that some seem to know and some do not
>
You sir, typically fall into the latter category.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:50:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/15/2016 3:06 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:78OdnfdARpUi3ATLnZ2dnUU7-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> I always thought that the live oaks were probably some type of white oak.
>>
>> The tree that's usually called a "live oak" is a white oak.
>> I think there are some red oaks which are evergreen.
>
>Well that makes things confusing. LOL
>
>It is common knowledge, common or not, that a live oak is called that
>because it's leaves are always green AND leaves only fall off in the
>Spring when the new leaves and pollen pushes the old green leaves off.
>
>A real PIA as you can't leave those leaves on the ground very long all.
> The choke the new spring growth in the yard.
>
>So now you say that there is a Red Oak that is evergreen that might
>categorize it as a Live Oak that is typically a White Oak. would those
>be Pink Oaks? ;~)
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Just wait until the Comet gets to Black Oak. There are three
>> of them in the US, two are red and one is white.
>
>Sounds just like the scenario that I mentioned above.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> John
>>
Then you have pin Oaks
On 1/14/2016 5:04 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and
>> white oak is redder wood
>>
>> i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned
>> i was considering getting some red oak firewaood but may pass on it
>>
>> some places just say oak firewood for sale and no more
>>
>> fyi boat builders i think like white oak more due to lower porosity
>
> There are roughly 100 species of oak trees in the US. The
> color of the lumber is generally not a good indicator of
> whether a given oak is in the "red" group or the "white"
> group.
>
> Boat builders favor white oak for two reasons: one is that
> it doesn't rot quickly since it doesn't absorb water easily
> (red oak rots very quickly if it's allowed to get wet).
> The other is that the live oaks fall into the white group,
> and they are far and away the best source of compass timbers.
>
> Oaks of any kind make good firewood because it's fairly
> dense, and it splits easily.
>
> John
>
So to clarify,
Red Oaks have many kinds.
White Oak have many "kinds and Live Oaks" which have many kinds.
I always thought that the live oaks were probably some type of white oak.
On 1/16/2016 2:31 PM, Leon wrote:
>
> Funny how you take things for granted. I did not notice much up until I
> bought a decent 35mm camera in 1976. Then and now I look at things much
> differently.
We see a lot, but comprehend little. Cameras change the way you see
things. Especially once you learns what "depth of field" is and how to
control it. That was a big step in my photography.
On 01/13/2016 01:47 PM, Leon wrote:
> This is tree and why wine and whisky barrels are made from white oak.
> Old sailing ships were made from white oak.
New sailing ships too:
http://sdmaritime.org/visit/the-ships/san-salvador/
I have some offcuts from this ship that I'm using to make a segmented
salad bowl...
...Kevin
--
Kevin Miller
Juneau, Alaska
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
"In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car."
- Lawrence Summers
On 1/13/2016 4:27 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 5:33 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>> i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and
>> white oak is redder wood
>>
>> i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned i was
>> considering getting some red oak firewaood but may pass on it
>>
>> some places just say oak firewood for sale and no more
>>
>> fyi boat builders i think like white oak more due to lower porosity
>>
> I may have mentioned this before, but one summer day a few years ago I
> saw some workers outside a wood flooring shop barbecuing steaks over
> some oak flooring cutoffs.
Got'a love that prefinished stained wood flavor. ;~) Hopefully they
were working with unfinished wood. LOL
On 1/13/2016 3:32 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:14:27 -0500
> "EXT" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In my experience red oak has a reddish tinge to the wood colour,
>> while white oak lacks the red and is more brown. You can see photos
>
> i saw a boat builder video comparing the two oaks porosity
>
> to my eye the white oak looked reddish but maybe it was brown
>
> the red oak looked lighter colored
>
>> I am certain that boat builders do not like red oak because it will
>
> according the video it was all about porosity
> the red oak soaked water like a sponge
This is tree and why wine and whisky barrels are made from white oak.
Old sailing ships were made from white oak.
>
>> Regarding smoke, I have no idea. Firewood sellers probably don't know
>> nor care about the differences. For firewood, the heavier the wood,
>
> i find that some seem to know and some do not
On 1/13/2016 4:33 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and white oak
> is redder wood
Nope! Red Oak has a pinkish cast when sanded. White Oak has a light
brown cast and when sanded.
>
> i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned
It will if wet.
The sub-species here dumps twice a year. Never any peace.
Martin
On 1/16/2016 7:25 AM, Leon wrote:
> Martin Eastburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I have half a dozen of these beauties (in the winter). However,
>> they constantly shed leaves so it seems. Come spring off goes the
>> winter set as the new set starts to pull in energy. Likewise in the
>> Fall, the leave change out again - never all at once, but half and half.
>> If rainfall is late, the leaves stay on - still working until a
>> replacement set can be grown.
>
> Live oaks keep their leaves all through summer, fall, and winter. And they
> stay green until they fall off of the tree in the spring. They are
> immediately replaced by new leaves. The falling off and new replacement all
> takes place in about 2- 3 weeks.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Interesting tree. The big Burr oak - Had one but it died in a storm.
>> I think it might have rotted out with to much water. They are wide
>> canopies something like ? 80 feet! ? From what I recall from the tag.
>> I could grow several, but I want more than 3 or so trees!
>>
>>
>
>
>
On 1/18/2016 8:43 AM, Brewster wrote:
> On 1/17/16 11:42 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> Today I use Fugi brand cameras with non removable lenses. I really
>> really miss the fast lenses, fast compared to today's standards. DOF
>> really comes into it's own when you have the aperture wide open and your
>> are shooting closer to you vs. focused closer to infinity.
>>
>> I am however considering going back to a Canon DSLR, probably one of
>> the Rebels. I still have my old EOS 630 and IIRC my old lenses will
>> work on the new EOS DSLR's.
>
>
> I resemble this!
>
> I have (still) an A-1, Built like a tank, made with RTL (resistor
> transistor logic), precursor to TTL (transistor-transistor logic).
>
> I "upgraded" to a digital Rebel with the same idea of using my old
> lenses as a bonus, that doesn't work. If I recall correctly, the old
> mounts have some doo-wah-jabber that interferes.
My old lenses fit my EOS 630, they are EF lenses and should work. Once
I finally sold my A-1 the lenses went with it.
>
> I have been buying lenses for my Rebel that are for full frame sensors
> so I can still use them when I upgrade to a more professional body.
>
> -BR
>
On 1/17/2016 12:23 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> I sort'a feel sorry for those that never had manual focus or manual
>> metering.
>
> I agree. My first decent camera was a fully manual Yashika TL-Electro
> X. If you wanted to double expose a frame in that camera, you had to
> actually (try to...) rewind the film after cocking the aperture for the
> second shot. But - that was an early '70's camera and lacked any of the
> modern conveniences. You had to learn about taking pictures to get
> anything more than snapshot quality out of it. That's why we read books
> by people like Ansel Adams...
>
>
The Canon TX, AE-1, and IIRC A-1 had a button on the bottom of the
camera to release the advance lever so that it would not advance the
film and that release allowed the crank to rewind the film into the
canister.
The advance lever also set the shutter for the next shot. Double,
triple exposure etc was simple.
Today I use Fugi brand cameras with non removable lenses. I really
really miss the fast lenses, fast compared to today's standards. DOF
really comes into it's own when you have the aperture wide open and your
are shooting closer to you vs. focused closer to infinity.
I am however considering going back to a Canon DSLR, probably one of
the Rebels. I still have my old EOS 630 and IIRC my old lenses will
work on the new EOS DSLR's.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Electric Comet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and white
> > oak
> > is redder wood
> >
> > i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned
> > i was considering getting some red oak firewaood but may pass on it
> >
> > some places just say oak firewood for sale and no more
> >
> > fyi boat builders i think like white oak more due to lower porosity
> >
>
> In my experience red oak has a reddish tinge to the wood colour, while white
> oak lacks the red and is more brown. You can see photos of the woods if you
> Google.
>
> I am certain that boat builders do not like red oak because it will turn
> black when it gets soaked especially around fasteners, as they react with
> the tannin in the wood.
White oak will do the same and boatbuilders love it for some purposes.
> Regarding smoke, I have no idea. Firewood sellers probably don't know nor
> care about the differences. For firewood, the heavier the wood, more heat is
> released by the wood. This is why high density woods are prized for burning
> and are often more expensive.
On 1/16/2016 9:23 AM, Markem wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:33:36 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2016 6:31 PM, Markem wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:50:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/15/2016 3:06 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:78OdnfdARpUi3ATLnZ2dnUU7-
>>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I always thought that the live oaks were probably some type of white oak.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tree that's usually called a "live oak" is a white oak.
>>>>> I think there are some red oaks which are evergreen.
>>>>
>>>> Well that makes things confusing. LOL
>>>>
>>>> It is common knowledge, common or not, that a live oak is called that
>>>> because it's leaves are always green AND leaves only fall off in the
>>>> Spring when the new leaves and pollen pushes the old green leaves off.
>>>>
>>>> A real PIA as you can't leave those leaves on the ground very long all.
>>>> The choke the new spring growth in the yard.
>>>>
>>>> So now you say that there is a Red Oak that is evergreen that might
>>>> categorize it as a Live Oak that is typically a White Oak. would those
>>>> be Pink Oaks? ;~)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just wait until the Comet gets to Black Oak. There are three
>>>>> of them in the US, two are red and one is white.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds just like the scenario that I mentioned above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Then you have pin Oaks
>>>
>>
>> Would that not be a type of white or red oak? I suspect actually maybe
>> a white oak/live oak. Maybe not.
>>
>>
> Most Pin Oaks I have seen are more bush than tree, but that was
> Colorado near Franktown.
>
I see, sounds kinda like Mesquite trees down here in Texas. They are
not an oak but are mostly shrub like near civilization. If you find old
ones out in the country side they can become relatively large and yield
some decent sized boards. BUT they grow very very slowly and you mostly
see the small shrubs, those are good for cooking fire wood.
I have bold after bolt of this strong figure.
The waves have maybe 1" or 1.5" wave lengths. Running up/down the tree.
All I can figure is either there is far more than what I have found or
it is a section of the tree that took the rotation of the head of the
branches - the rotational twisting might cause it to sink or shorten
as it pops grain and it regrows to cover over most and strengthen
better. That is what I think.
Martin
On 1/15/2016 8:27 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 11:32 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>> I have some fire wood that I'm picking out bolts to re-saw into small
>> boards. I've never seen it before.
>>
>> Curly oak. I've seen maple but in oak - can't wait till I get a board...
>>
>> Some of the wood is very active in the waves of wood bulge out the
>> side...
>>
>> Wow!
>>
>> Any oak users see any ?
>>
>> Martin
> ...
>
> See enough wood and you'll eventually see most everything... :)
>
> Are you perhaps talking of burls here, though with the "wood bulge out
> the side" description?
>
> I've seen some "curly" grain in oak, yes, altho in white oak rather than
> red; otomh I can't recall any in red as it's so ring-porous not sure
> it'd ever be altho faint possibility I suppose if it were quartersawn.
> In rift of flatsawn don't think it'd ever be other than perhaps in some
> knotwood. That, of course, is where it shows up mostly in the white oak
> is around included branches and the like...
>
> --
>
On 1/17/2016 1:23 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> I sort'a feel sorry for those that never had manual focus or manual
>> metering.
>
> I agree. My first decent camera was a fully manual Yashika TL-Electro
> X. If you wanted to double expose a frame in that camera, you had to
> actually (try to...) rewind the film after cocking the aperture for the
> second shot. But - that was an early '70's camera and lacked any of the
> modern conveniences. You had to learn about taking pictures to get
> anything more than snapshot quality out of it. That's why we read books
> by people like Ansel Adams...
>
>
Then you had the fun of the darkroom. I spent more time printing a shot
than it took to take it with the camera. Once I went to digital I never
turned the lights off again.
On 1/17/2016 3:16 PM, dadiOH wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 1/17/2016 9:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 1/16/2016 2:31 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Funny how you take things for granted. I did not notice much up
>>>> until I bought a decent 35mm camera in 1976. Then and now I look
>>>> at things much differently.
>>>
>>> We see a lot, but comprehend little. Cameras change the way you see
>>> things. Especially once you learns what "depth of field" is and how
>>> to control it. That was a big step in my photography.
>>
>>
>> I took a physics class in college and several of the classes covered
>> "light". Several years before getting my first decent
>> camera, a Canon TX, followed by an AE-1, A-1, EOS 659, EOS 630 and
>> finally the leap to digital, I knew all about hows and whys on the
>> filtering of light and exposure.
>>
>> I sort'a feel sorry for those that never had manual focus or manual
>> metering.
>
> Ditto. Many/most have no idea what they are doing or how to do it again.
>
> I messed with cameras for more than 50 years, from sub-niniature to 11 x 14.
> When I retired, I kept three...a Canon A-1 with a few lenses and two
> Rolleiflexes. The Rolleis aren't very versatile but they were far and away
> my favorites although they got little use after the early 60s.
>
> Now, I use a Fuji "bridge" camera, spend an inordinate amount of time trying
> to remember how to access what I want in the menus. Easier in the old
> days...SAFE (shutter, aperture focus, expose),
>
>
My current is a Fugi F100FS whick looks a lot like a typical 35mm SLR.
Lens goes, 35mm equivalent, 28-400mm optically and will double that
digitally. I don't digitally zoom for any other reason than to see
something closer, never for actual printing. ;~)
Unfortunately its fastest F-Stop is 2.8, not really slow but I had 1.8
years ago and that was significantly faster. and that might explain why
most digital cameras don't go below 100 on film speed. I remember when
ASA 160 was HOT! LOL I mostly used 64 or 120 and occasionally 25.
And you are right about the menu's. I can never remember how to view a
picture and zoom or crop it and save on the camera.
I have some fire wood that I'm picking out bolts to re-saw into small
boards. I've never seen it before.
Curly oak. I've seen maple but in oak - can't wait till I get a board...
Some of the wood is very active in the waves of wood bulge out the side...
Wow!
Any oak users see any ?
Martin
On 1/13/2016 4:07 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/13/2016 3:32 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:14:27 -0500
>> "EXT"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In my experience red oak has a reddish tinge to the wood colour,
>>> while white oak lacks the red and is more brown. You can see photos
>>
>> i saw a boat builder video comparing the two oaks porosity
>>
>> to my eye the white oak looked reddish but maybe it was brown
>>
>> the red oak looked lighter colored
>>
>>> I am certain that boat builders do not like red oak because it will
>>
>> according the video it was all about porosity
>> the red oak soaked water like a sponge
>
> Why don't you just do as you suggest I do and go look (altho on that
> discussion I _have_ looked and can't find what you claim is so :( )...
>
> <http://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/distinguishing-red-oak-from-white-oak/>
>
>
>>> Regarding smoke, I have no idea. Firewood sellers probably don't know
>>> nor care about the differences. For firewood, the heavier the wood,
>>
>> i find that some seem to know and some do not
>
> If they're only cutting firewood, they really don't care and there's a
> good chance there are other hardwoods in the mix as well (and who know,
> they may try to slip in a little SYP if the customer doesn't know
> better). All in all, you don't really care as it makes hardly a whit of
> difference for virtually all excepting for a very few such as poplar and
> avoiding a _lot_ of pine owing to the pitch (altho if you burn it with
> some dry hardwood, it'll burn hot enough that creosoting isn't much of a
> real problem In VA and TN we burned quite a lot of all with simply some
> care to spread the pine out some).
>
> If they're older woods kinda' guys they'll know from the bark and the
> wood 'cuz they'll just know one from another; if they're just a bunch of
> kids or hacks cutting wood for a few bucks they may have no klew what
> _any_ tree actually is, only if it's lost its leaves or not in the
> winter time.
>
> --
>
Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote in news:n768lh$533$10@dont-
email.me:
> i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and white oak
> is redder wood
No. Red oak wood is kind of pink. White oak wood is brown.
>
> i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned
Not that I've noticed, and I've burned three or four cords of it in the last eight or ten years. Of
course, any wood will smoke when burned if it's wet, or the fire doesn't have enough draft.
> i was considering getting some red oak firewaood but may pass on it
If the price is good, and the wood is dry, go for it. It's decent firewood. Not as good as
hickory or hard maple, but it's good.
>
> some places just say oak firewood for sale and no more
>
> fyi boat builders i think like white oak more due to lower porosity
I think a boat made of red oak wouldn't float very well....
Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and
> white oak is redder wood
>
> i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned
> i was considering getting some red oak firewaood but may pass on it
>
> some places just say oak firewood for sale and no more
>
> fyi boat builders i think like white oak more due to lower porosity
There are roughly 100 species of oak trees in the US. The
color of the lumber is generally not a good indicator of
whether a given oak is in the "red" group or the "white"
group.
Boat builders favor white oak for two reasons: one is that
it doesn't rot quickly since it doesn't absorb water easily
(red oak rots very quickly if it's allowed to get wet).
The other is that the live oaks fall into the white group,
and they are far and away the best source of compass timbers.
Oaks of any kind make good firewood because it's fairly
dense, and it splits easily.
John
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:78OdnfdARpUi3ATLnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]:
> I always thought that the live oaks were probably some type of white oak.
The tree that's usually called a "live oak" is a white oak.
I think there are some red oaks which are evergreen.
Just wait until the Comet gets to Black Oak. There are three
of them in the US, two are red and one is white.
John
dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> I recall reading some research articles done by FPL
> comparing various white oaks and Quercus Virginiana won hands down.
> It was so popular for boat-building back in the earlier days of the US
> when wood boats were all there were that it was the subject of the
> first US regulation in trade for a wood species (seems like that was
> like as early as in the 1780s or so, even although don't take it to be
> gospel but I'm not agonna' look it up at the moment <g>).
That was specifically because of it's value as a source of
compass timbers. For most purposes (including boat building)
live oak isn't very good, because it doesn't usually have a
long straight trunk. In the days of wooden ships, white oak
(Q. Alba, etc) was normally used for planking, because you
can get long planks from it (and it's desirable to minimize
the number of plank joints). Framing was normally done with
live oak.
> As far as I am aware all the live oaks are evergreens; that's why
> they're "live" :)
Yes, all live oaks are evergreen. I'm not certain that all
evergreen oaks are white oaks, however.
John
On 1/15/2016 6:31 PM, Markem wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:50:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2016 3:06 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:78OdnfdARpUi3ATLnZ2dnUU7-
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> I always thought that the live oaks were probably some type of white oak.
>>>
>>> The tree that's usually called a "live oak" is a white oak.
>>> I think there are some red oaks which are evergreen.
>>
>> Well that makes things confusing. LOL
>>
>> It is common knowledge, common or not, that a live oak is called that
>> because it's leaves are always green AND leaves only fall off in the
>> Spring when the new leaves and pollen pushes the old green leaves off.
>>
>> A real PIA as you can't leave those leaves on the ground very long all.
>> The choke the new spring growth in the yard.
>>
>> So now you say that there is a Red Oak that is evergreen that might
>> categorize it as a Live Oak that is typically a White Oak. would those
>> be Pink Oaks? ;~)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Just wait until the Comet gets to Black Oak. There are three
>>> of them in the US, two are red and one is white.
>>
>> Sounds just like the scenario that I mentioned above.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>
> Then you have pin Oaks
>
Would that not be a type of white or red oak? I suspect actually maybe
a white oak/live oak. Maybe not.
Red Oak has more tannin and decays faster. Large pore and such.
It has reddish color and 'bleads' if cut when sap is running.
I just had a dozen logs sawed in the back yard. I had a massive 35" to
30" log that yielded a stack of 4x4's.
It was funny watching sometimes - he used a medium size tractor trying
to pick up 22' log like that and it was to heavy. It drove the tractor
into the ground with the weight. It was cut to 11 feet and he could
just make it.
Not sure on what he was trying to say.
Red is red when dripping sap. White like winter wood or dried.
I'd look at leaves and bark and cells to call an oak an oak. They morph
easily between each other.
Martin
On 1/13/2016 4:33 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and white oak
> is redder wood
>
> i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned
> i was considering getting some red oak firewaood but may pass on it
>
> some places just say oak firewood for sale and no more
>
> fyi boat builders i think like white oak more due to lower porosity
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On 1/17/2016 9:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/16/2016 2:31 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> Funny how you take things for granted. I did not notice much up until I
>> bought a decent 35mm camera in 1976. Then and now I look at things much
>> differently.
>
> We see a lot, but comprehend little. Cameras change the way you see
> things. Especially once you learns what "depth of field" is and how to
> control it. That was a big step in my photography.
I took a physics class in college and several of the classes covered
"light". Several years before getting my first decent
camera, a Canon TX, followed by an AE-1, A-1, EOS 659, EOS 630 and
finally the leap to digital, I knew all about hows and whys on the
filtering of light and exposure.
I sort'a feel sorry for those that never had manual focus or manual
metering.
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:32:58 -0600, Martin Eastburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I have some fire wood that I'm picking out bolts to re-saw into small
>boards. I've never seen it before.
>
>Curly oak. I've seen maple but in oak - can't wait till I get a board...
>
>Some of the wood is very active in the waves of wood bulge out the side...
>
>Wow!
>
>Any oak users see any ?
>
I've seen some real nice curly pattern in quarter sawn oak many times.
cut at an angle a lot of the pattern dissapears, so I'd suspect that
piece of lumber came from a tree with, among other things, a bit of a
twist in the trunk in the area the log was cut from.
On 1/13/2016 5:33 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and white oak
> is redder wood
>
> i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned
> i was considering getting some red oak firewaood but may pass on it
>
> some places just say oak firewood for sale and no more
>
> fyi boat builders i think like white oak more due to lower porosity
>
I don't know how boat building and burning wood for heat are connected,
but it makes no difference.
Red oak burns just fine. It is abundant around here and I've burned many
cords of it. If I had a boat built with it I'd probably burn that too
as the wood it too porous for water use. Red oak is good for cooking
too, either in a fire pit or smoker.
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:33:00 -1100, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:
>i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and white oak
>is redder wood
Nope.
>
>i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned
>i was considering getting some red oak firewaood but may pass on it
Red Oak has a lot of tanin so it does smell more when burned. Not
sure why one would care, though. The stink goes outside. Wet Red Oak
could easily be a no-no, though.
>
>some places just say oak firewood for sale and no more
>
>fyi boat builders i think like white oak more due to lower porosity
Red Oak is like a box of straws glued together. They don't build
boats out of them, either.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
dadiOH wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 1/17/2016 9:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 1/16/2016 2:31 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Funny how you take things for granted. I did not notice much up
>>>> until I bought a decent 35mm camera in 1976. Then and now I look
>>>> at things much differently.
>>>
>>> We see a lot, but comprehend little. Cameras change the way you see
>>> things. Especially once you learns what "depth of field" is and how
>>> to control it. That was a big step in my photography.
>>
>>
>> I took a physics class in college and several of the classes covered
>> "light". Several years before getting my first decent
>> camera, a Canon TX, followed by an AE-1, A-1, EOS 659, EOS 630 and
>> finally the leap to digital, I knew all about hows and whys on the
>> filtering of light and exposure.
>>
>> I sort'a feel sorry for those that never had manual focus or manual
>> metering.
>
> Ditto. Many/most have no idea what they are doing or how to do it again.
>
> I messed with cameras for more than 50 years, from sub-niniature to 11 x 14.
> When I retired, I kept three...a Canon A-1 with a few lenses and two
> Rolleiflexes. The Rolleis aren't very versatile but they were far and away
> my favorites although they got little use after the early 60s.
>
> Now, I use a Fuji "bridge" camera, spend an inordinate amount of time trying
> to remember how to access what I want in the menus. Easier in the old
> days...SAFE (shutter, aperture focus, expose),
>
>
My first "real" camera was a Rollei. Using a light meter you set the
exposure value and the aperture and speed rings locked together.
Loved that feature--if you needed a fast exposure the aperture was
automatically right for that speed.
--
GW Ross
Press any key to continue or any other
key to quit...
On 1/16/2016 9:49 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/16/2016 9:23 AM, Markem wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:33:36 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2016 6:31 PM, Markem wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:50:39 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
> ...
>
>>>> Then you have pin Oaks
>>>>
>>> Would that not be a type of white or red oak? I suspect actually maybe
>>> a white oak/live oak. Maybe not.
>
> Pin oak is one of the red oak group; its wood cells are ring porous (not
> tylose-filled as are the white oak group).
>
>> Most Pin Oaks I have seen are more bush than tree, but that was
>> Colorado near Franktown.
>
> That's well out of it's native range which is from eastern KS to the
> east coast roughly bounded on north by top of IL, IN, OH and to the
> south by southern edged of TN to about the middle of the state then
> missing the Cumberlands and Smokeys to be about bottom of OH east. It's
> typically bottom-land and thus pretty damp so is regionally called
> "swamp oak" (as which I first knew it in SE KS where was prevalent where
> my mother was raised). In that range it can get to 60-ft easily but in
> the higher elevation of CO and much drier climate it'll struggle to get
> some real size, undoubtedly.
>
> Much as I've tried numerous times to bring various oaks and maples and
> so on that were rampant as weed seedlings in VA and TN back to the farm
> and get them established, they just don't adapt well and none have
> survived more than a few years at most in our sandy soils and much less
> rain. It's just not possible to put enough into the ground to prevent
> the iron chlorosis for anything larger than a shrub long-term.
>
> They can be confused with scarlet oak and black oak but the pin oak has
> unique characteristic dead branches on the lower trunk (the "pins") and
> also has in mature specimens a characteristic crown shape more similar
> to pines/conifers in a triangular profile than other oaks. The leaf is
> exceedingly shiny, also, deeply veined.
>
> They were the most common ornamental in Mom's country but the wood is
> much inferior to "real" red oak as lumber, typically being full of small
> knots.
>
> And, that's more than you wanted to know... :)
>
> --
;~) Well thank you for all of this information, it has been eye opening.
On 01/13/2016 4:33 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and white oak
> is redder wood
>
> i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned
> i was considering getting some red oak firewaood but may pass on it
>
> some places just say oak firewood for sale and no more
>
> fyi boat builders i think like white oak more due to lower porosity
Equivalently dry, white oak will have only about 10% more heating value
than red oak, mostly owing to the white oak is roughly 5-7% more dense.
As for smoke, again, if they're dry there will be no discernible
difference to worry about.
As for color, the reason red oak is called "red" is....
There's variability owing to particular subspecies and growth location
(minerals content in soil can make significant difference, for example)
so there are individual trees that will be lighter and basically mimic a
white oak in color but as a general rule they are definitely pinkish to
occasionally quite dark.
The prime difference between the two is the porosity and resistance to
decay; red oak will rot quite rapidly in comparison to white and is so
ring porous as to be useless for coopering or boatbuilding from that
standpoint. White oak, otoh, is the cat's meow for wine casks and many
other similar uses...
--
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:14:27 -0500
"EXT" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In my experience red oak has a reddish tinge to the wood colour,
> while white oak lacks the red and is more brown. You can see photos
i saw a boat builder video comparing the two oaks porosity
to my eye the white oak looked reddish but maybe it was brown
the red oak looked lighter colored
> I am certain that boat builders do not like red oak because it will
according the video it was all about porosity
the red oak soaked water like a sponge
> Regarding smoke, I have no idea. Firewood sellers probably don't know
> nor care about the differences. For firewood, the heavier the wood,
i find that some seem to know and some do not
On 01/13/2016 3:32 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:14:27 -0500
> "EXT"<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In my experience red oak has a reddish tinge to the wood colour,
>> while white oak lacks the red and is more brown. You can see photos
>
> i saw a boat builder video comparing the two oaks porosity
>
> to my eye the white oak looked reddish but maybe it was brown
>
> the red oak looked lighter colored
>
>> I am certain that boat builders do not like red oak because it will
>
> according the video it was all about porosity
> the red oak soaked water like a sponge
Why don't you just do as you suggest I do and go look (altho on that
discussion I _have_ looked and can't find what you claim is so :( )...
<http://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/distinguishing-red-oak-from-white-oak/>
>> Regarding smoke, I have no idea. Firewood sellers probably don't know
>> nor care about the differences. For firewood, the heavier the wood,
>
> i find that some seem to know and some do not
If they're only cutting firewood, they really don't care and there's a
good chance there are other hardwoods in the mix as well (and who know,
they may try to slip in a little SYP if the customer doesn't know
better). All in all, you don't really care as it makes hardly a whit of
difference for virtually all excepting for a very few such as poplar and
avoiding a _lot_ of pine owing to the pitch (altho if you burn it with
some dry hardwood, it'll burn hot enough that creosoting isn't much of a
real problem In VA and TN we burned quite a lot of all with simply some
care to spread the pine out some).
If they're older woods kinda' guys they'll know from the bark and the
wood 'cuz they'll just know one from another; if they're just a bunch of
kids or hacks cutting wood for a few bucks they may have no klew what
_any_ tree actually is, only if it's lost its leaves or not in the
winter time.
--
On 1/13/2016 5:33 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and
> white oak is redder wood
>
> i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned i was
> considering getting some red oak firewaood but may pass on it
>
> some places just say oak firewood for sale and no more
>
> fyi boat builders i think like white oak more due to lower porosity
>
I may have mentioned this before, but one summer day a few years ago I
saw some workers outside a wood flooring shop barbecuing steaks over
some oak flooring cutoffs.
On 1/13/2016 5:51 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 4:27 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 1/13/2016 5:33 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>>> i recall from a boat builder that red oak is actually white wood and
>>> white oak is redder wood
>>>
>>> i also thought red oak smoked a lot more when burned i was
>>> considering getting some red oak firewaood but may pass on it
>>>
>>> some places just say oak firewood for sale and no more
>>>
>>> fyi boat builders i think like white oak more due to lower porosity
>>>
>> I may have mentioned this before, but one summer day a few years ago I
>> saw some workers outside a wood flooring shop barbecuing steaks over
>> some oak flooring cutoffs.
>
>
> Got'a love that prefinished stained wood flavor. ;~) Hopefully they
> were working with unfinished wood. LOL
It certainly looked like regular 3/4" t&g oak, unstained. Smelled tasty
too.
On 01/14/2016 11:32 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> I have some fire wood that I'm picking out bolts to re-saw into small
> boards. I've never seen it before.
>
> Curly oak. I've seen maple but in oak - can't wait till I get a board...
>
> Some of the wood is very active in the waves of wood bulge out the side...
>
> Wow!
>
> Any oak users see any ?
>
> Martin
...
See enough wood and you'll eventually see most everything... :)
Are you perhaps talking of burls here, though with the "wood bulge out
the side" description?
I've seen some "curly" grain in oak, yes, altho in white oak rather than
red; otomh I can't recall any in red as it's so ring-porous not sure
it'd ever be altho faint possibility I suppose if it were quartersawn.
In rift of flatsawn don't think it'd ever be other than perhaps in some
knotwood. That, of course, is where it shows up mostly in the white oak
is around included branches and the like...
--
On 01/15/2016 3:06 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:78OdnfdARpUi3ATLnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]:
>
>> I always thought that the live oaks were probably some type of white oak.
>
> The tree that's usually called a "live oak" is a white oak.
> I think there are some red oaks which are evergreen.
It's the Quercus Virginiana of the southeast. I know it's considered to
be in the white oak category as far as wood properties because its pores
contain tyloses which is what gives it (white oak, that is) its
water-tightness and highly increased rot resistance as compared to the
red oaks.
Back in the mid-90s or so I think it was(?) there was quite a lot of
interest specifically for the purpose of doing restoration work on the
USS Constitution. I recall reading some research articles done by FPL
comparing various white oaks and Quercus Virginiana won hands down. It
was so popular for boat-building back in the earlier days of the US when
wood boats were all there were that it was the subject of the first US
regulation in trade for a wood species (seems like that was like as
early as in the 1780s or so, even although don't take it to be gospel
but I'm not agonna' look it up at the moment <g>).
As far as I am aware all the live oaks are evergreens; that's why
they're "live" :)
> Just wait until the Comet gets to Black Oak. There are three
> of them in the US, two are red and one is white.
<Chuckle,snort...>
--
On 01/16/2016 9:23 AM, Markem wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:33:36 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>> On 1/15/2016 6:31 PM, Markem wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:50:39 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
...
>>> Then you have pin Oaks
>>>
>> Would that not be a type of white or red oak? I suspect actually maybe
>> a white oak/live oak. Maybe not.
Pin oak is one of the red oak group; its wood cells are ring porous (not
tylose-filled as are the white oak group).
> Most Pin Oaks I have seen are more bush than tree, but that was
> Colorado near Franktown.
That's well out of it's native range which is from eastern KS to the
east coast roughly bounded on north by top of IL, IN, OH and to the
south by southern edged of TN to about the middle of the state then
missing the Cumberlands and Smokeys to be about bottom of OH east. It's
typically bottom-land and thus pretty damp so is regionally called
"swamp oak" (as which I first knew it in SE KS where was prevalent where
my mother was raised). In that range it can get to 60-ft easily but in
the higher elevation of CO and much drier climate it'll struggle to get
some real size, undoubtedly.
Much as I've tried numerous times to bring various oaks and maples and
so on that were rampant as weed seedlings in VA and TN back to the farm
and get them established, they just don't adapt well and none have
survived more than a few years at most in our sandy soils and much less
rain. It's just not possible to put enough into the ground to prevent
the iron chlorosis for anything larger than a shrub long-term.
They can be confused with scarlet oak and black oak but the pin oak has
unique characteristic dead branches on the lower trunk (the "pins") and
also has in mature specimens a characteristic crown shape more similar
to pines/conifers in a triangular profile than other oaks. The leaf is
exceedingly shiny, also, deeply veined.
They were the most common ornamental in Mom's country but the wood is
much inferior to "real" red oak as lumber, typically being full of small
knots.
And, that's more than you wanted to know... :)
--
On 01/16/2016 12:14 PM, Leon wrote:
...
> ;~) Well thank you for all of this information, it has been eye opening.
Having grown up where trees were non-existent except for those planted
around farmsteads and in towns(+), an almost all of what were there
(other than the red-cedar which can be a weed even here altho it's also
invaluable for windbreaks as one of the few things that can survive once
established w/o continual irrigation) were mostly the junky Siberian and
Chinese elm with a few hackberries and the very occasional other random
hardwood. There were so few nut-bearing trees in town until just the
last 20 year or so that there were no squirrels at all.
With that background, when got to S Central VA out of school and was
surrounded by the hardwood forests of most any of the common furniture
woods that were available straight from small independent mills at
almost throwaway prices (I was buying "pick-thru" white oak, rift- or
quarter-sawn at 10-cents a foot or less) the woodworking interest had
had in high-school shop really bit. Consequently, at that time I did a
lot of reading on and studying of trees and their woods both to be able
to understand more of "what was good for what" as well as identify sawn
lumber and the trees from which it came.
I remember a good amount of it; some I did pull out a reference for a
refresher... :)
(+) Geezer story alert--proceed at own peril! :)
I mentioned SE KS where mother was raised on a farm on the Neosho River
bottom ground. One fall when quite young we went on a visit to her
family still in the area (altho her folks my grandparents obviously had
given up in the 30s and moved to the Rio Grande valley among the first
wave of the citrus cultivation there). Since all the trees were in
spectacular fall color, my mother kept telling my brother and I in the
back seat to "look at all the colors!" Supposedly I got up off the
floor where we were playing cars and replied "There just trees and all
they do is get in your eyes!" as my only idea of scenery was wide-open
to the horizon flat country.
--
Leon wrote:
>
> I sort'a feel sorry for those that never had manual focus or manual
> metering.
I agree. My first decent camera was a fully manual Yashika TL-Electro
X. If you wanted to double expose a frame in that camera, you had to
actually (try to...) rewind the film after cocking the aperture for the
second shot. But - that was an early '70's camera and lacked any of the
modern conveniences. You had to learn about taking pictures to get
anything more than snapshot quality out of it. That's why we read books
by people like Ansel Adams...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Leon wrote:
> On 1/17/2016 9:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 1/16/2016 2:31 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Funny how you take things for granted. I did not notice much up
>>> until I bought a decent 35mm camera in 1976. Then and now I look
>>> at things much differently.
>>
>> We see a lot, but comprehend little. Cameras change the way you see
>> things. Especially once you learns what "depth of field" is and how
>> to control it. That was a big step in my photography.
>
>
> I took a physics class in college and several of the classes covered
> "light". Several years before getting my first decent
> camera, a Canon TX, followed by an AE-1, A-1, EOS 659, EOS 630 and
> finally the leap to digital, I knew all about hows and whys on the
> filtering of light and exposure.
>
> I sort'a feel sorry for those that never had manual focus or manual
> metering.
Ditto. Many/most have no idea what they are doing or how to do it again.
I messed with cameras for more than 50 years, from sub-niniature to 11 x 14.
When I retired, I kept three...a Canon A-1 with a few lenses and two
Rolleiflexes. The Rolleis aren't very versatile but they were far and away
my favorites although they got little use after the early 60s.
Now, I use a Fuji "bridge" camera, spend an inordinate amount of time trying
to remember how to access what I want in the menus. Easier in the old
days...SAFE (shutter, aperture focus, expose),
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Then you had the fun of the darkroom. I spent more time printing a shot
> than it took to take it with the camera. Once I went to digital I never
> turned the lights off again.
Yes - I sure did. Started at it when I was stationed in Okinawa, and
spend many hours in a blacked out bathroom. It was fascinating turning
out some really cool pictures - generally somewhat tweaked. Used to
have a supply of paper free from a buddy that worked in the photo lab,
so I got to play and experiment to my heart's desire.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:24:47 -0600
Martin Eastburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Red Oak has more tannin and decays faster. Large pore and such.
> It has reddish color and 'bleads' if cut when sap is running.
the smoky oak i bought last time i think was red oak but not sure
maybe the prevalence of tannins caused more smoke
On 01/17/2016 7:46 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:24:47 -0600
> Martin Eastburn<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Red Oak has more tannin and decays faster. Large pore and such.
>> It has reddish color and 'bleads' if cut when sap is running.
>
> the smoky oak i bought last time i think was red oak but not sure
>
> maybe the prevalence of tannins caused more smoke
More than likely was still green. I know of no oak that won't burn
cleanly if dry and in sufficient draft.
--
On 1/17/16 11:42 AM, Leon wrote:
>
> Today I use Fugi brand cameras with non removable lenses. I really
> really miss the fast lenses, fast compared to today's standards. DOF
> really comes into it's own when you have the aperture wide open and your
> are shooting closer to you vs. focused closer to infinity.
>
> I am however considering going back to a Canon DSLR, probably one of
> the Rebels. I still have my old EOS 630 and IIRC my old lenses will
> work on the new EOS DSLR's.
I resemble this!
I have (still) an A-1, Built like a tank, made with RTL (resistor
transistor logic), precursor to TTL (transistor-transistor logic).
I "upgraded" to a digital Rebel with the same idea of using my old
lenses as a bonus, that doesn't work. If I recall correctly, the old
mounts have some doo-wah-jabber that interferes.
I have been buying lenses for my Rebel that are for full frame sensors
so I can still use them when I upgrade to a more professional body.
-BR
I have half a dozen of these beauties (in the winter). However,
they constantly shed leaves so it seems. Come spring off goes the
winter set as the new set starts to pull in energy. Likewise in the
Fall, the leave change out again - never all at once, but half and half.
If rainfall is late, the leaves stay on - still working until a
replacement set can be grown.
Interesting tree. The big Burr oak - Had one but it died in a storm.
I think it might have rotted out with to much water. They are wide
canopies something like ? 80 feet! ? From what I recall from the tag.
I could grow several, but I want more than 3 or so trees!
Martin
On 1/15/2016 3:20 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/15/2016 3:06 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:78OdnfdARpUi3ATLnZ2dnUU7-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> I always thought that the live oaks were probably some type of white
>>> oak.
>>
>> The tree that's usually called a "live oak" is a white oak.
>> I think there are some red oaks which are evergreen.
>
> It's the Quercus Virginiana of the southeast. I know it's considered to
> be in the white oak category as far as wood properties because its pores
> contain tyloses which is what gives it (white oak, that is) its
> water-tightness and highly increased rot resistance as compared to the
> red oaks.
>
> Back in the mid-90s or so I think it was(?) there was quite a lot of
> interest specifically for the purpose of doing restoration work on the
> USS Constitution. I recall reading some research articles done by FPL
> comparing various white oaks and Quercus Virginiana won hands down. It
> was so popular for boat-building back in the earlier days of the US when
> wood boats were all there were that it was the subject of the first US
> regulation in trade for a wood species (seems like that was like as
> early as in the 1780s or so, even although don't take it to be gospel
> but I'm not agonna' look it up at the moment <g>).
>
> As far as I am aware all the live oaks are evergreens; that's why
> they're "live" :)
>
>
>
>> Just wait until the Comet gets to Black Oak. There are three
>> of them in the US, two are red and one is white.
>
> <Chuckle,snort...>
>
> --
>
>
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 22:38:17 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> I recall reading some research articles done by FPL
>> comparing various white oaks and Quercus Virginiana won hands down.
>> It was so popular for boat-building back in the earlier days of the US
>> when wood boats were all there were that it was the subject of the
>> first US regulation in trade for a wood species (seems like that was
>> like as early as in the 1780s or so, even although don't take it to be
>> gospel but I'm not agonna' look it up at the moment <g>).
>
>That was specifically because of it's value as a source of
>compass timbers. For most purposes (including boat building)
>live oak isn't very good, because it doesn't usually have a
>long straight trunk. In the days of wooden ships, white oak
>(Q. Alba, etc) was normally used for planking, because you
>can get long planks from it (and it's desirable to minimize
>the number of plank joints). Framing was normally done with
>live oak.
>
>> As far as I am aware all the live oaks are evergreens; that's why
>> they're "live" :)
>
>Yes, all live oaks are evergreen. I'm not certain that all
>evergreen oaks are white oaks, however.
>
Huh. I would have expected an evergreen oak to be green. ;-)
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:33:36 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/15/2016 6:31 PM, Markem wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:50:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/15/2016 3:06 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:78OdnfdARpUi3ATLnZ2dnUU7-
>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> I always thought that the live oaks were probably some type of white oak.
>>>>
>>>> The tree that's usually called a "live oak" is a white oak.
>>>> I think there are some red oaks which are evergreen.
>>>
>>> Well that makes things confusing. LOL
>>>
>>> It is common knowledge, common or not, that a live oak is called that
>>> because it's leaves are always green AND leaves only fall off in the
>>> Spring when the new leaves and pollen pushes the old green leaves off.
>>>
>>> A real PIA as you can't leave those leaves on the ground very long all.
>>> The choke the new spring growth in the yard.
>>>
>>> So now you say that there is a Red Oak that is evergreen that might
>>> categorize it as a Live Oak that is typically a White Oak. would those
>>> be Pink Oaks? ;~)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just wait until the Comet gets to Black Oak. There are three
>>>> of them in the US, two are red and one is white.
>>>
>>> Sounds just like the scenario that I mentioned above.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>
>> Then you have pin Oaks
>>
>
>Would that not be a type of white or red oak? I suspect actually maybe
>a white oak/live oak. Maybe not.
>
>
Most Pin Oaks I have seen are more bush than tree, but that was
Colorado near Franktown.
On 1/16/2016 1:18 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/16/2016 12:14 PM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> ;~) Well thank you for all of this information, it has been eye opening.
>
> Having grown up where trees were non-existent except for those planted
> around farmsteads and in towns(+), an almost all of what were there
> (other than the red-cedar which can be a weed even here altho it's also
> invaluable for windbreaks as one of the few things that can survive once
> established w/o continual irrigation) were mostly the junky Siberian and
> Chinese elm with a few hackberries and the very occasional other random
> hardwood. There were so few nut-bearing trees in town until just the
> last 20 year or so that there were no squirrels at all.
>
> With that background, when got to S Central VA out of school and was
> surrounded by the hardwood forests of most any of the common furniture
> woods that were available straight from small independent mills at
> almost throwaway prices (I was buying "pick-thru" white oak, rift- or
> quarter-sawn at 10-cents a foot or less) the woodworking interest had
> had in high-school shop really bit. Consequently, at that time I did a
> lot of reading on and studying of trees and their woods both to be able
> to understand more of "what was good for what" as well as identify sawn
> lumber and the trees from which it came.
>
> I remember a good amount of it; some I did pull out a reference for a
> refresher... :)
>
>
> (+) Geezer story alert--proceed at own peril! :)
>
> I mentioned SE KS where mother was raised on a farm on the Neosho River
> bottom ground. One fall when quite young we went on a visit to her
> family still in the area (altho her folks my grandparents obviously had
> given up in the 30s and moved to the Rio Grande valley among the first
> wave of the citrus cultivation there). Since all the trees were in
> spectacular fall color, my mother kept telling my brother and I in the
> back seat to "look at all the colors!" Supposedly I got up off the
> floor where we were playing cars and replied "There just trees and all
> they do is get in your eyes!" as my only idea of scenery was wide-open
> to the horizon flat country.
>
> --
Funny how you take things for granted. I did not notice much up until I
bought a decent 35mm camera in 1976. Then and now I look at things much
differently.