wood species question

Lou wrote:
You have a good list of tools. I replaced my coping saw with a back saw
and started getting better results. I'd like to ad 2 more tools to your
list, a standup belt sander and a pair of reading glasses.
The belt sander comes in handy for over cutting the small pieces and
sanding down to the lines and square.

I suggest a better tool for that, or at least a quieter one, is
a low-angle block plane. In Fine Woodworking the process you
describe is called 'blocking in' hence the name for the preferred
tool.

However, be forewarned: Once you start using planes, there is no
going back.

The reading glasses sure help on
the small joint alignment.


Great idea.

--

FF

Gordon Arnaut wrote:

It is a fact that there have been catastrophic structural failures on
homebuilt wooden airframes. That's not to say that those accidents were
caused by wood damaged in transit. In some cases, accident investigators
have been able to pinpoint the cause of the failure -- and compression
failure in wood members has been one such cause, as have other things, like
improper techniques, materials, etc.

Can you cite a few? I don't remember of any and I've read many accident
reports over the years.


Matt

Let's see whether I have this clear. A discussion was started about wood
substitution. Someone opined that the difficulty of the calculations
wasn't worth the effort, and Gordon, who is obviously extremely
intelligent and exceptionally knowledgeable on the subject, demonstrated
by example that the calculations aren't all that complex.

Someone else piped in with a dissenting opinion, and included some
disparaging comments about Gordon in his post, which of course is common
on usenet, but nevertheless, widely considered inappropriate.

In a subsequent series of exchanges, Gordon referred to his new-found
adversary as:

mouth foamer xx
heel-nipper
sociopath
intellectual dwarf
complete jackass
wild-eyed moron
annoying idiot
crazy nut
wild-eyed idiot
Mr. Personality Disorder
idiot xxxx
(completely worthless) clown xx
stupid ass
pathetic moron
know-nothing
annoying moron
irritating moron

each x represents a repeat of the same slur.

Gordon also said:

"Yes, I can see how he hates suffering from a personality disorder that
compels him to behave inappropriately and then causes acute
embarassment. Still, I would caution that self-hating tendencies are a
very serious matter and I would strongly counsel seeking professional
help."

I'm not sure how others feel, but I find this situation more than
slightly ironic. I've never believed that hostility, anger, and
condemnation of others in any way makes us better people. Nor does it
add to our credibility, make the other person less credible, enhance our
standing in the community, sway opinion in our favor, or otherwise "win
friends and influence people."

There are obviously some very knowledgeable people here. But when we
disagree, why not just debate topics based on our individual knowledge
and beliefs? I personally deduct a few "credibility points" when I see
the above-referenced types of attacks, *whether or not* the poster
believes them to be justified. Two wrongs *do not* make a right. The
most convincing way to discredit a jerk is not to act like a jerk
yourself.

I hope Gordon doesn't feel picked on, because I'm using his posts as an
example of widespread behavior that, frankly, I find distressing. (The
inane zzzzz thread is another fine example.) Nevertheless, if he chooses
to refer to me in some derogatory fashion, you will not see me retaliate
in same fashion.

I'm using the news reader that comes with OS X. After composing a post
and hitting the "post" button, I get a dialogue box that says:

"Are you sure you want to post? This machine posts news to thousands of
machines throughout the civilized world. Please be sure you know what
you are doing."

This dialogue box is easily disabled, but I choose to leave it active.
Perhaps other news programs should include a similar admonition.

NOTE: I realized recently that there are two Smittys on this group;
since I'm relatively new I think it's appropriate that I adopt another
moniker to avoid confusion, so in the future I believe I'll be Smitty
Two or something to that effect.

Smitty (the new one) wrote:

After composing a post
and hitting the "post" button, I get a dialogue box that says:

"Are you sure you want to post? This machine posts news to thousands of
machines throughout the civilized world. Please be sure you know what
you are doing."


That message should be printed all around the monitor frame of every
computer connected to the Internet. It could change the nature of Usenet
as we know it. OK, I'm an optimist.

Smitty,

Thanks for chipping in.

You have described the discussion quite accurately, for which I am grateful.

Yes, I called the annoying rodent a lot of names. (Sorry to add a new one to
your list).

But his out-of-the-blue attack was so unjustified and his criticisms so
devoid of any footing in fact that I have become extremely angry.

I don't make excuses for that -- despite the fact that I realize it does not
necessarily make me look good either, at least in the eyes of the
intelligent and thoughtful people on this list.

At the same time, I believe my humiliating this rodent also sends a message
to those of his ilk who will next time possibly think twice before acting
out inappropriately and hijacking a disucssion that they are not qualified
to debate -- lest they get dismantled as thoroughly and as embarrassingly as
Mr. Personality.

I think Mr. Personality has learned a lesson too. At the very least I have
succeeded in silencing his meaningless screaming that had completely
derailed this discussion -- and this is a good thing.

And yes, I could have stopped bashing a long time ago, but just like when
someone sucker punches you from behind, you tend to keep on bashing long
after you have subdued the attacker -- until you have punched the anger out
of your system.

I feel I am close to that point now. I came here only to partake in polite
discussion and to learn from others. I did not come here to lecture or to
make myself look smarter than others -- and I am very angry that I have been
forced into that kind of contest by this person. Very angry about that part
still.

Because I consider humility and modesty important aspects of my personal
diginity, the last thing I want to act out is ostentatious displays of
knowledge. Yet I have been forced by anger and the insistent challenges of
this pea-brain to do just that.

I will leave it at that. Perhaps now you can better appreciate from whence
my anger springs.

Regards,

Gordon.





"Smitty" wrote in message
news
Let's see whether I have this clear. A discussion was started about wood
substitution. Someone opined that the difficulty of the calculations
wasn't worth the effort, and Gordon, who is obviously extremely
intelligent and exceptionally knowledgeable on the subject, demonstrated
by example that the calculations aren't all that complex.

Someone else piped in with a dissenting opinion, and included some
disparaging comments about Gordon in his post, which of course is common
on usenet, but nevertheless, widely considered inappropriate.

In a subsequent series of exchanges, Gordon referred to his new-found
adversary as:

mouth foamer xx
heel-nipper
sociopath
intellectual dwarf
complete jackass
wild-eyed moron
annoying idiot
crazy nut
wild-eyed idiot
Mr. Personality Disorder
idiot xxxx
(completely worthless) clown xx
stupid ass
pathetic moron
know-nothing
annoying moron
irritating moron

each x represents a repeat of the same slur.

Gordon also said:

"Yes, I can see how he hates suffering from a personality disorder that
compels him to behave inappropriately and then causes acute
embarassment. Still, I would caution that self-hating tendencies are a
very serious matter and I would strongly counsel seeking professional
help."

I'm not sure how others feel, but I find this situation more than
slightly ironic. I've never believed that hostility, anger, and
condemnation of others in any way makes us better people. Nor does it
add to our credibility, make the other person less credible, enhance our
standing in the community, sway opinion in our favor, or otherwise "win
friends and influence people."

There are obviously some very knowledgeable people here. But when we
disagree, why not just debate topics based on our individual knowledge
and beliefs? I personally deduct a few "credibility points" when I see
the above-referenced types of attacks, *whether or not* the poster
believes them to be justified. Two wrongs *do not* make a right. The
most convincing way to discredit a jerk is not to act like a jerk
yourself.

I hope Gordon doesn't feel picked on, because I'm using his posts as an
example of widespread behavior that, frankly, I find distressing. (The
inane zzzzz thread is another fine example.) Nevertheless, if he chooses
to refer to me in some derogatory fashion, you will not see me retaliate
in same fashion.

I'm using the news reader that comes with OS X. After composing a post
and hitting the "post" button, I get a dialogue box that says:

"Are you sure you want to post? This machine posts news to thousands of
machines throughout the civilized world. Please be sure you know what
you are doing."

This dialogue box is easily disabled, but I choose to leave it active.
Perhaps other news programs should include a similar admonition.

NOTE: I realized recently that there are two Smittys on this group;
since I'm relatively new I think it's appropriate that I adopt another
moniker to avoid confusion, so in the future I believe I'll be Smitty
Two or something to that effect.

Matt,

Are you questioning whether an amateur-built wooden airframe has ever failed
in flight?

Because I think this would be a rather ridiculous notion. A thorough search
of the NTSB archives should turn up numerous examples.

Specific cases I have heard of have involved the Minimax, Volksplane and
several other wood airplane types. I cannot cite details or NTSB numbers,
but the info is out there.

Regards,

Gordon.


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Gordon Arnaut wrote:

It is a fact that there have been catastrophic structural failures on
homebuilt wooden airframes. That's not to say that those accidents were
caused by wood damaged in transit. In some cases, accident investigators
have been able to pinpoint the cause of the failure -- and compression
failure in wood members has been one such cause, as have other things,
like improper techniques, materials, etc.

Can you cite a few? I don't remember of any and I've read many accident
reports over the years.


Matt

Matt,

There was discussion recently on the Minimax list about a fatal accident
involving a wing breaking off. The accident was preceded by a ground
incident in which the airframe sustained some damage that was said to be
slight. No more verifiable details that I know, but one would assume the
builder carefully inspected the airframe before flying again and could see
no problems.

Another one that comes to mind is a Fisher that had a spar failure and which
the NTSB said was due to some wood problems and technique. I think it's safe
to say there are others.

But like I said, even where the wood fails, it is nearly impossible to
establish after the fact when the wood was damaged -- just it's impossible
to tell (without very fancy testing at the molecular level) when metal
fatigue on airframes reaches its point of no return. (That's not to compare
the two directly because wood does not have "fatigue.")

Regards,

Gordon.



"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Gordon Arnaut wrote:
Matt,

Are you questioning whether an amateur-built wooden airframe has ever
failed in flight?

No, I'm simply saying I've not heard of one that failed from a problem
with the wood. I've heard of a few that had glue failures.


Because I think this would be a rather ridiculous notion. A thorough
search of the NTSB archives should turn up numerous examples.

It might, but you talked as though you had examples readily at hand so I
was asking to see a couple to save hours of searching.

Matt

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
Because I consider humility and modesty important aspects of my personal
diginity, the last thing I want to act out is ostentatious displays of
knowledge.

I will have to wait for several hours for my laughter to subside.

Now. That's better.

Someone questions you on the smallest technical point and you respond
by calling them a mouth-foaming sociopath, and all the other things
Smitty listed?

You're insane. More than that, you are flamboyantly insane.

And you misspelled "divinity." It's understandable, even for someone
as God-like as you, since the "v" key is right next to the "g" key.
Normally I wouldn't point out a typographic error in a usenet post but
that one almost made my irony meter explode. It was almost as if you
were trying to type "dignity."


I will leave it at that. Perhaps now you can better appreciate from whence
my anger springs.

And from whence springs your anger at Jim Weir?

I don't know anything about designing or building with wood. Based on
what you have written here, I would never use anything from you as a
reference.

karel wrote:
"Bashir" bsal
I will have to wait for several hours for my laughter to subside.

Now. That's better.

( ... )

Thank you Sir!

I am pleased that you find my post clear. English has been very
difficult to learn, but I felt that I was doing better this past year.

My pleasure, Sir!

Bashir

Not that I care about your snot-nosed perspective, but you are severly
twisting reality when you say that what set me off was someone "questioning"
me on a small technical point.

What took placed was a hysterical attack complete with name-calling. This is
not "questioning." This is the verbal equivalent of hurling stones at
someone's window. Maybe you go around "questioning" people by launching
verbal missiles, but most people have a quite different idea of what
constitutes polite "questioning."

Regards,

Gordon.




"Bashir" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gordon Arnaut wrote:
Because I consider humility and modesty important aspects of my personal
diginity, the last thing I want to act out is ostentatious displays of
knowledge.

I will have to wait for several hours for my laughter to subside.

Now. That's better.

Someone questions you on the smallest technical point and you respond
by calling them a mouth-foaming sociopath, and all the other things
Smitty listed?

You're insane. More than that, you are flamboyantly insane.

And you misspelled "divinity." It's understandable, even for someone
as God-like as you, since the "v" key is right next to the "g" key.
Normally I wouldn't point out a typographic error in a usenet post but
that one almost made my irony meter explode. It was almost as if you
were trying to type "dignity."


I will leave it at that. Perhaps now you can better appreciate from
whence
my anger springs.

And from whence springs your anger at Jim Weir?

I don't know anything about designing or building with wood. Based on
what you have written here, I would never use anything from you as a
reference.