Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

5k Year Old Bog Oak Table: Digging up 4k-year-old trees for furniture

blog.lostartpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 110 posts

Re: 5k Year Old Bog Oak Table: Digging up 4k-year-old trees for furniture

#91

Post by quesera »

dylan604 wrote: post #71
quesera wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And 43' of table with the density of ebony..! From the article: 72 lbs/ft^3. Estimating the table width at 6', and thickness at 2", that would be a total weight of 3096 lbs. Plus a healthy non-zero for the legs and other supports. If you carry the tabletop (legs and trusses removed) with 24 people, 12 on a side, one every 4 feet, that would be 129 lbs each. OSHA would not approve. You could probably find 24 people at…

Does OSHA have any say of something occurring in the UK though? One of the image captions states 18 people carried a single slab, so there's no way 24 would carry the full table, even without doing the maths.

Naturally OSHA is not relevant, nor are feet or pounds, in the UK.

But I feel fairly confident that there are UK-localized versions of each.

> One of the image captions states 18 people carried a single slab, so there's no way 24 would carry the full table, even without doing the maths.

That does not follow. 18 people make many carrying jobs easier, but they are not necessarily all required.

However, since the four tabletop planks are not joined into a single piece, it is clear that 12 people on a side is not a reasonable approach.

If the tabletop is removed from the support structure, then 12 people make multiple trips with each plank, at 65 lbs per person, per plank.

If the tabletop is not removed from the support structure, and we conservatively estimate legs etc at 50% of the tabletop weight, for a total weight just about 2.3 (US/short) tons ... you would need 66 people, properly distributed, to stay within the OSHA recommended lifting maximum of 70 lbs each.

To get 66 people around that table, they would need to be about 3 feet apart, which is just barely adequate working space.

Fortunately we don't move things like this using people. Not even in the UK!

Re: 5k Year Old Bog Oak Table: Digging up 4k-year-old trees for furniture

#92

Post by njarboe »

brabel wrote: post #78
lostlogin wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wood dug out of swamps in NZ is far too valuable to be firewood, but wrecking wetland does have a massive negative impact. It’s worth googling images of swamp kauri if woodworking is your thing, the logs are truely massive.

I did just that... and found this interesting article about swamp kauri and how they helped understand what happened last time the Earth's magnetic poles reversed, 42,000 years ago: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/ancient-no...

The Earth's magnetic poles last permanently reversed about 780,000 years ago. The magnetic event that happened ~41,000-42,000 years ago is called the Laschamps excursion. An excursion is when the magnetic field gets very weak, becomes non-dipolar, but then returns to the original polarity that the field was before the excursion. Occasionally durning these excursions the field flips directions and becomes stable in the opposite direction. That did not happen for the Laschamps. Many of these excursions have occurred since the last reversal of the field.

The article you linked to is a bit woo-woo, especially with all the Douglas Adam's stuff and the number 42. The article did not link to the scientific paper, which is an interesting read. It seems to be open access, so check it out[1].

[1]https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6531/811

Re: 5k Year Old Bog Oak Table: Digging up 4k-year-old trees for furniture

#93

Post by mywittyname »

rabf wrote: post #89
mywittyname wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have different tastes. Just because something is old or handmade, that doesn't make it desirable. Plus, 140 year old furniture takes specialized maintenance if you want them to last. It's kind of expensive to properly maintain or refinish antique furniture. Chairs, especially, need proper maintenance, they experience much more wear than something like a chest, and an improper fix can destroy it.

Older furniture can be much easier to repair its just a shame that the knowledge is somewhat less commanplace than it once was. Shellac finishes are a known quantity, easy to touch up or remove an re-apply. The animal glues used in woodwork of the past also allows joints to be easily disassembled for repair and often you can just reactivate the existing glue with some moisture and heat.

Of you break a spindle or a stretcher, especially at a tendon, then doing a proper fix does take skill and specialized tools. Disassembly really isn't an issue, because, like you said, some heat and pressure will release most joints with ease.

But actually fixing a break does take skill. If you're lucky the pieces will mate back together seamlessly and you can use wood glue and maybe some wax to get the piece looking like new and just reassemble them. But if the break is not clean, or there has been a previous repair (maybe involving screws or nails) then replicating a piece is pretty difficult. Turning a new piece requires a lathe, color matching stains is definitely a skill you acquire through experience.

Chips on surfaces and the like pretty much require you to have a decent collection of veneer on hand, in order to luck out and find something with similar grain patterns.

I do a fair bit of antiquing and (proper) refurbishing of old furniture (not 'upcycling'). It's not for the faint of heart. It's a time-consuming labor of love that's akin to maintaining a classic car.

Re: 5k Year Old Bog Oak Table: Digging up 4k-year-old trees for furniture

#94

Post by dylan604 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #83
dylan604 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Metric system conversion should not be difficult, however, I recently learned it has been made convoluted. Attempting to find out the per gram price of something bought in a kilogram bundle, I simply divided the kilo price by 1000. This is where it got confusing. I was told there are only 985 grams in a kilo. Me: huh?? It's literally the definition of the word kilogram, 1000 grams. Fucked up maths: 1kilo = 2.2lbs * 1…

Who told you this? I can't find anything talking about 985 grams.

The people selling things in kilo bundles do not appreciate names being used. While there is no NDA in place, repurcussions are more severe than NDA's could dream. Silly questions like this are also not condoned.

Re: 5k Year Old Bog Oak Table: Digging up 4k-year-old trees for furniture

#95

Post by mkl »

dylan604 wrote: post #72
hu3 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For metric system folks: 129 lbs is roughly 58.5 kg of mass per person to lift.

Metric system conversion should not be difficult, however, I recently learned it has been made convoluted. Attempting to find out the per gram price of something bought in a kilogram bundle, I simply divided the kilo price by 1000. This is where it got confusing. I was told there are only 985 grams in a kilo. Me: huh?? It's literally the definition of the word kilogram, 1000 grams. Fucked up maths: 1kilo = 2.2lbs * 1…

> Apparently, this is the standard on purchasing of items sold in kilograms.

That sounds like nonsense. Standard where? What items? In countries that just use the metric system, there would be no conversion to pounds and ounces (most people would have to look up how to do it).

Re: 5k Year Old Bog Oak Table: Digging up 4k-year-old trees for furniture

#96

Post by MisterBastahrd »

tristor wrote: post #18

I had never heard of bog oak before, but this material is absolutely stunning. I really wish there was more appreciation of proper heirloom-quality furniture and things in general. I think it's part of making living more ecological, and it's a form of generational wealth. Unfortunately we live in an era of cheapest possible items, and disposal of things when they go out of style. Something like this never goes out of…

I first encountered bog oak (morta) in the world of tobacco pipes. Turns out that some pipe makers have been using the material for quite a while because the grain patterns are stunning.

Re: 5k Year Old Bog Oak Table: Digging up 4k-year-old trees for furniture

#97

Post by wcarss »

forgive me for pulling such a large quote out, but it just glows:

> “Don’t ever underestimate a craftsman,” he emphasizes, “because they’re highly disciplined, highly trained, very determined individuals. I’m a real advocate of traditional apprenticeships. I don’t think you could be good at this job other than by doing it as an apprenticeship. Doing it as an apprenticeship teaches you humility. One of the people I worked with said, ‘Somebody who never made a mistake never made anything.’ Processing bog oak went so wrong, so often; you could take the view that it’s a waste of time. Or you can say, ‘I’ve applied myself to this in the wrong way, so what can I do to do it right?’ A craftsman accepts that they’ve made a mistake. Then, rather than saying, ‘That’s a stupid idea,’ or ‘This is impossible,’ they say ‘What did I do wrong and what have I got to do to make it work?’”

chef's kiss this is sage and serious advice, well told

Re: 5k Year Old Bog Oak Table: Digging up 4k-year-old trees for furniture

#98

Post by dylan604 »

mkl wrote: post #95
dylan604 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Metric system conversion should not be difficult, however, I recently learned it has been made convoluted. Attempting to find out the per gram price of something bought in a kilogram bundle, I simply divided the kilo price by 1000. This is where it got confusing. I was told there are only 985 grams in a kilo. Me: huh?? It's literally the definition of the word kilogram, 1000 grams. Fucked up maths: 1kilo = 2.2lbs * 1…

> Apparently, this is the standard on purchasing of items sold in kilograms. That sounds like nonsense. Standard where? What items? In countries that just use the metric system, there would be no conversion to pounds and ounces (most people would have to look up how to do it).

Hello logic, meet brick wall. Enjoy the conversation.

Lots of in between the lines intentionally left for the reader. No, I'm not in a country that normally uses kilo for weight. There are not many things sold by the kilo in non-metric using countries, but some items are regardless.

Trust me, I've already had this argument until I was blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that this still occurs.

Re: 5k Year Old Bog Oak Table: Digging up 4k-year-old trees for furniture

#99

Post by mikeyouse »

hbarka wrote: post #81

This is all so fascinating. The idea of using wood thousands of years old. The craft of the people doing it. The realization that there are colonies of trees still standing, yes still standing, that are hundreds of years old.

There are trees still standing in parts of the world that there are several thousand years old. Some of the oldest trees in California's redwood groves took root before the Roman Empire. E.g:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagg_(tree)

Re: 5k Year Old Bog Oak Table: Digging up 4k-year-old trees for furniture

#100

Post by zo1 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #19
tristor wrote: post #18

I had never heard of bog oak before, but this material is absolutely stunning. I really wish there was more appreciation of proper heirloom-quality furniture and things in general. I think it's part of making living more ecological, and it's a form of generational wealth. Unfortunately we live in an era of cheapest possible items, and disposal of things when they go out of style. Something like this never goes out of…

Ikea has made millennials think furniture is disposable.

Or that you don't need to own it - you can just rent it... Isn't that the "exxagerated" trope regarding that these days?

Don't need to own a car, just use Uber! Don't need to own your servers, just provision (rent) them from AWS! etc.

Wonder when it'll apply to furniture?

Post reply on HN