PDA

View Full Version : The largest solid piece of wood?



tashirosgt
2010-Feb-16, 03:21 PM
This story claims that a company is selling the world's largest solid piece of wood? http://www.ancientwood.com/catalog/large-slabs/slab-1900

I wonder if there were larger pieces in the ancient world?

Perhaps the mania for large pieces of wood is a modern cultural phenomena. With modern technology, making large wooden items is done more cheaply by joining together several small pieces. So something made of one solid piece of wood suggests an expensive "handcrafted" object. With older technology it may have been more expensive to join together the pieces, so a composite design would have indicated an object that was expensive and handcrafted.

One Skunk Todd
2010-Feb-16, 03:32 PM
Eh, I've seen bigger. ;)

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb32/oneskunktodd/Seattle/IMG_6788.jpg
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb32/oneskunktodd/Seattle/IMG_6792.jpg

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-16, 04:21 PM
Eh, I've seen bigger. ;)

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb32/oneskunktodd/Seattle/IMG_6788.jpg
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb32/oneskunktodd/Seattle/IMG_6792.jpg

But those aren't pieces, they're whole. :whistle:

Actually; I would say that someone somewhere should have not used the word "wood" and should have said "lumber" or "board".

MAPNUT
2010-Feb-16, 04:44 PM
I was going to say that anyone could get a bigger "piece of wood' if they were willing to cut down a redwood or sequoia. But what's remarkable about that piece, in case you didn't read the link, is that it's 50,000 years old and was dug out of the ground. I don't know what the resource-conservation ethics would be for "mining" such a resource.

LotusExcelle
2010-Feb-16, 05:08 PM
Now that is a specialized business if ever I've seen one.

novaderrik
2010-Feb-16, 08:25 PM
i love this line:
"the wood qualifies for LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) credits it is sought after by the leading architects and designers in green building and design."

it is "greener" to dig up a slab of wood that's been buried for 50,000 years and transport it halfway around the world to make a big table than it is to chop down a couple of smaller trees locally and make a table out of them?
if that's "green" and gets some sort of credit for being "green", then i should get a gold (or green) medal every time i drive my 1974 Monte Carlo that gets 17mpg or my 1987 Chevy 3/4 ton 4X4 truck that gets 12mpg with a strong tailwind..

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-16, 08:35 PM
Ah, but all that is allowed because it raises awareness.

Sorry, yet another pet peeve.

RAF_Blackace
2010-Feb-16, 10:47 PM
Yes, but does it burn well ?

mugaliens
2010-Feb-16, 11:35 PM
it is "greener" to dig up a slab of wood that's been buried for 50,000 years and transport it halfway around the world to make a big table than it is to chop down a couple of smaller trees locally and make a table out of them?

if that's "green" and gets some sort of credit for being "green", then i should get a gold (or green) medal every time i drive my 1974 Monte Carlo that gets 17mpg or my 1987 Chevy 3/4 ton 4X4 truck that gets 12mpg with a strong tailwind..

Excellent point. If they really wanted to do green, they should build a roundhouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roundhouse_(dwelling)_Celtic_Wales.jpeg)and sit everyone on the floor.

DonM435
2010-Feb-26, 06:54 PM
I thought we'd be discussing certain actors here.

Amber Robot
2010-Feb-26, 07:16 PM
You could make a whole lot of toothpicks out of that piece!

Ara Pacis
2010-Feb-28, 12:34 AM
It's not currently a living tree, thus removing it does not reduce a forest and does not reduce the present CO2 sequestration capability of a living tree and, unless it's burned, does not add to current atmospheric CO2.

Also, the OP sounded like it was talking about wood worked by ancient humans, not wood cut from an old tree.

Ara Pacis
2010-Feb-28, 12:36 AM
I was going to say that anyone could get a bigger "piece of wood' if they were willing to cut down a redwood or sequoia.

IIRC, large redwoods and sequoias tend to shatter when they hit the ground. That's why they are still there.

LotusExcelle
2010-Feb-28, 01:01 AM
I was under the impression they were there due to conservation - their wood is highly valuable and likely would have been cultivated beyond sustainability.

Delvo
2010-Feb-28, 02:38 AM
The shattering effect usually ruined about half of the wood that was originally there in a tree, but the other half would still be taken away and used. That made the profit margin lower than a lot of other woods, but still enough to do it on the philosophy of "earning some money's better than earning none, and these are what we've got available so these are what we can use".

The wood they got from those trees was too weak to make big buildings out of, but very slow to rot. So it was used for shingles, siding, fence posts, and light outdoor construction such as small sheds, gazebos, and decks.