Lincoya Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 After hearing comments off-and-on in the forum about water absorption rates I decided to do a little test. I cut eleven lure blanks out of various woods that I had on hand that I have heard people use for lures. All of the wood is dry and has been in my lumber room in the same environment for a minimum of a least a year. All blanks were cut into 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KcDano Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Good info, Gene. Many of the long ago established large lure companies conducted similar tests with various wood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaPala Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 No Jelutong Gene? Good effort still . Now here is a job for Vodka, plot us the graph for wood Density Vs Water Saturation. The graph should show a pattern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodkaman Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 LP, way ahead of you. Been playing with the figures for the last hour. I know you were only joking, but you know me well. Great figures Gene. What the figures highlighted for me, is the innacuracy of published wood densities and that they should only be used as a rough guide. However, from genes figures and using published densities as a start point and averaging out the calculated volume, I arrived at a test piece volume of 16.32cm3. I repeated this again, this time eliminating the biggest density errors, I arrived at a test piece volume of 16.38gm/cm3. In imperial figures, this is exactly one cubic inch (very clever Gene). Given the volume, I was then able to closely guestimate the actual wood densities. Was this necessary? of course not, but it entertained me for a while. The useful information is in the before and after weights. The percentage weight gain figures are however misleading. By simply subtracting the before from the after, gives the weight of water absorbed. This makes paulowina the winner with least water absorbed. Balsa came in at No4, basswood, as expected came last. Thanks Gene. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazmail Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Hey Gene what about Kauri Pine and Expanded PVC - Don't worry I will do it when I get back. Great job and I was surprised to see Maple suck up so much, maybe it's different to the Maples we get here, Mirante and Queensland Maple are both on the heavy/dense side. pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoya Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Thanks guys. This was something that Nathan and I discussed at the get-together. There is one correction (Thanks Vodkaman): Change the Eastern Cedar dry weight from .225 to .255. Eastern Cedar-----.255--------.280----------10% Sorry for the misprint. I have since rechecked my figures. It was late and I was getting frustrated trying to keep the figures in separated colums when I previewd it. Gene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdman Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Fascinating comparisons. Confirms my preference for cedar. I wonder if lumber companies have curing rates for the various woods used in the test? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
