Yeah, there's a lot to it. Lots to learn. Do you think the rings are just as tight at the top of these huge trees as at the bottom of the trunk? Most of the wood at the bottom of the trunk is apparently dead [the whole center?]. I guess the percentage of live cells in a "slice" would be greater at the top, if that means anything. Most of the wood at the bottom of the trunk is definitely going to be older, if that means anything.

that's not how trees work, the oldest part is in the CENTRE and the rest expands out from that centre, you have heartwood in the centre of the tree and sapwood around this, your fundamental understanding of trees and wood is completely wrong.

this may explain more: https://www.arborday.org/trees/treeguide/anatomy.cfm

I think you misunderstand.

That's what I am saying. You must be misreading or misinterpreting.

And that heartwood at the bottom of the trunk is older than heartwood at the top of the trunk

That's how time works. Things that exist before other things are older than the things they predate.

With all due respect, I don't think so. No need to be insulting.

Seen that. Its pretty basic. There's quite a bit out there that's more in depth.

Not claiming to be a tree expert, btw. And I'm sure you're not either.


Take it easy,

audioforce

I've never heard a tree described as 'top' 'middle' or 'bottom' as though there's a hierarchy of where it comes from before, I am not an expert nor claiming to be, just the way you describe it is weird, thankyou master for responding. The best descriptions are all in books like for example 'wood identification and use' by terry porter (approved by the guild of master craftsmen) and 'understanding wood' is a classic.

Well, the more figured wood comes from the bottom of the trunk, where the weight of the tree compresses the wood and makes pretty little curls 'n' stuff.

He's been around here a lot longer than you and, although I don't always agree with everything he says he has definitely proved himself over the years.

Resonances ALWAYS absorb vibration. That's just basic acoustics. That doesn't mean that sometimes they don't somertimes appear to exaggerate certain frequencies depending on the position of the listener. But what they seem to exaggerate at one position they are absorbing even more at other positions for a net loss.

You can't get extra energy from nowhere. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Think what you want. Enorbet has been a professional at this for longer than most of us have been playing. Some people's "thoughts" are more valid than others.

That's nonsense. There are various things that figure wood in different ways. "Bird's Eye" maple is figured because the "bird's eys" are the beginnings of where twigs grow from the parent trunk or branch. "Spalted" wood is the result of a fungal infection. There are more patterns and more causes, NONE are caused by "the weight of the trunk".

That's just all over the place, sir. You've never heard the term "treetop"? But anyhow, we have been talking about tree trunks. "Hierarchy of where it comes from"? You're not really making grammatical sense.

We've established that, but you are disputing simple statements that you are apparently not understanding, as though you have some superior knowledge. And you are citing to texts that you found advertised on the internet as if you are ultra-familiar with them. Are you saying you are a woodworker or some sort of wood craftsman, or someone with a long-standing interest in, and study of, trees?

No, its not. A tree trunk has two ends and a middle, so to speak. The bottom of the tree trunk is closest to the ground, the top of the tree trunk is normally closest to the sky, and if you go to the point halfway between the bottom and top, you would be at the middle point.

So John Eppstein and I were talking about whether differences in density exist between wood toward the bottom of the trunk and wood toward the top of the trunk.

Your repetitive insults and sarcasm is not well taken, but you're welcome.

The texts you are citing to appear to have more to do with woodcrafting and identifying different woods than with theories of "how trees work". I think you are just trying to be confrontational and insulting to no real end, and with no real point other than misguided argument.


Best,

audioforce