Tag Archives: wood

Of walking sticks, canes, scepters, and wands.

Leave a reply
Franklin’s walking stick, willed to General Washington. Now in the Smithsonian.

Many famous people carried walking sticks Washington, Churchill, Moses, Dali. Until quite recently, it was “a thing”. Benjamin Franklin willed one, now in the Smithsonian, to George Washington, to act as a sort of scepter: “My fine crab-tree walking stick, with a gold head curiously wrought in the form of the cap of liberty, I give to my friend, and the friend of mankind, General Washington. If it were a Scepter, he has merited it, and would become it. It was a present to me from that excellent woman, Madame de Forbach, the dowager Duchess of Deux-Ponts”. A peculiarity of this particular stick is that the stick is uncommonly tall, 46 1/2″. This is too tall for casual, walking use, and it’s too fancy to use as a hiking stick. Franklin himself, used a more-normal size walking stick, 36 3/8″ tall, currently in the collection of the NY Historical Society. Washington too seems to have favored a stick of more normal length.

Washington with walking stick

Walking sticks project a sort of elegance, as well as providing personal protection. Shown below is President Andrew Jackson defending himself against an assassin using his walking stick to beat off an assassin. He went on to give souvenir walking sticks to friends and political supporters. Sticks remained a common political gift for 100 years, at least through the election of Calvin Coolidge.

Andrew Jackson defends himself.

I started making walking sticks a few years back, originally for my own use, and then for others when I noticed that many folks who needed canes didn’t carry them. It was vanity, as best I could tell: the normal, “old age” cane is relatively short, about 32″. Walking with it makes you bend over; you look old and decrepit. Some of the folks who needed canes, carried hiking sticks, I noticed, about 48″. These are too tall to provide any significant support, as the only way to grasp one was from the side. Some of my canes are shown below. They are about 36″ tall, typically with a 2″ wooden ball as a head. They look good, you stand straight, and they provides support and balance when going down stairs.

Some of my walking sticks.

I typically make my sticks of American Beech, a wood of light weight, with good strength, and a high elastic modulus of elasticity, about 1.85 x106 psi. Oak, hickory, and ash are good options, but they are denser, and thus more suited to self-defense. Wood is better than metal for many applications, IMHO, as I’ve discussed elsewhere. The mathematician Euler showed the the effective strength of a walking stick does not depend on the compressive strength but rather on elastic constant via “the Euler buckling equation”, one of many tremendously useful equations developed by Leonhard Euler (1707-1783).

For a cylindrical stick, the maximum force supported by a stick is: F = π3Er4/4L2, where F is the force, r is the radius, L is the length, and E is the elastic modulus. I typically pick a diameter of 3/4″ or 7/8″, and fit the length to the customer. For a 36″ beech stick, the buckling strength is calculated to be 221 or 409 pounds respectively. I add a rubber bottom to make it non–scuff and less slip-prone. I sometimes add a rope thong, too. Here is a video of Fred Astaire dancing with this style of stick. It’s called “a pin stick”, in case you are interested because it looks like a giant pin.

Country Irishmen are sometimes depicted with a heavy walking stick called a Shillelagh. It’s used for heavier self-defense than available with a pin-stick, and is generally seen being used as a cudgel. There are Japanese versions of self defense using a lighter, 36″ stick, called a Han-bo, as shown here. There is also the wand, as seen for example in Harry Potter. It focuses magical power. Similar to this is Moses’s staff that he used in front of Pharaoh, a combination wand and hiking stick as it’s typically pictured. It might have been repurposed for the snake-on-a-stick that protects against dark forces. Dancing with a stick, Astaire style, can drive away emotional forces, while the more normal use is elegance, and avoiding slips.

Robert Buxbaum, April 20, 2023.

Transparent, super wood

Leave a reply

As mentioned in a previous post, wood is more among the strongest materials per unit weight, making it ideal for table tops and telephone polls. On a per pound basis, most species of wood are more than twice as strong as aluminum or mild steel. Wood’s structure is is the reason; it’s a natural composite of air-filled, aligned tubes of crystalline cellulose, held together by natural glue, lignin.

In terms of raw strength though, pounds/in2, wood is not particularly strong, only about 7000 psi (45MPa) both in tension and compression, about half the strength of aluminum. It is thus not well suited to supporting heavy structures, like skyscrapers. (I calculate the maximum height of a skyscraper here), but wood can be modified to make it stronger by removing most of the air, and replacing it with plastic. The result is a stronger, denser, flexible composite, that is typically transparent. The flower below is seen behind a sheet of transparent wood.

A picture of a flower taken through a piece of transparent super-wood.

To make a fairly strong, transparent wood, you take ordinary low-density wood (beech or balsa are good) and soak it in alkali (NaOH). This bleaches the wood, softens the cellulose, and dissolves most of the lignin. You next wash off the alkali and soak the wood in a low viscosity epoxy or acrylic. Now, put it in a vacuum chamber to remove the air — you’ll need a brick to hold the wood down in the liquid. You’ll see bubbles in the epoxy as the air leaves. Then, when the vacuum is released, the wood soaks up the epoxy or acrylic. On curing, you get a composite strong and transparent, but not super strong.

To make the wood really strong, super-strong, you need to compress the uncured, epoxy soaked wood. One method is to put it in a vice. This drives off more of the air and further aligns the cellulose fibers. You now cure it as before (you need a really slow cure epoxy or a UV-cure polymer). The resultant product have been found to have tensile strengths as high as 270 MPa in the direction of alignment, over 40,000 psi. This is three times stronger than regular aluminum, 90 MPa, (13,500 psi). It’s about the strength of the strongest normal aluminum alloy, 6061. It’s sort of expensive to make, but it’s flexible and transparent, making it suitable for space windows and solar cells. It’s the lightest flexible transparent material known. It’s biodegradable, and that’s very cool, IMHO. See here for a comparison with other, high strength, transparent composites.

Robert Buxbaum, November 10, 2022. I think further developments along this line would make an excellent high school science fair project, college thesis, or PhD research project. Compare different woods, or epoxies, different alkalis, and temperatures, or other processing ideas. How strong and transparent can you make this material, or look at other uses. Can you use it for roof solar cells, like Musk’s but lighter, or mold it for auto panels, it’s already lighter and stronger, or use it as bullet-proof glass or airplane windows.

Wood, the strongest material for some things, like table-tops

2 Replies

Natural wood has a lower critical strength than most modern materials, and a lower elastic constant, yet it is the strongest material for some applications because it is remarkably light and remarkably cheap on a per-volume or weight. In some important applications, high strength per volume is the important measure, and in virtually every case high strength per dollar is relevant. Consider the table top: it should support a person standing on it, as one might do to change a lightbulb, and it should not weigh too much, or cost too much.

A 250 lb man on a table. The table should not weight too much, nor cost too much, yet it should support the man.

I’ve drawn a 9 foot by 4 foot table at left, with a 250 lb person in the center. Assuming that the thickness of the table is t, the deflection in the center, ∂, is found by the formula ∂ =FL3/4Ewt3. Here, F is the downward force, 250 lbs (a bit higher if we include the weight of the table), L is the length between the supports, 6 feet = 72 inches, E is the elastic constant of the table top, 2,300,000 psi assuming ash wood, w is the width of the table, 48″, and t is the thickness, let’s say 1″.

Using the formula above, we fid that the deflection of this tabletop is 0.211″ for a force of 250 lbs. That’s not bad. The weight of the 9′ table top is 125 lbs, which is not too bad either, and the cost is likely going to be acceptable: ash is a fairly cheap, nice-looking wood.

By comparison, consider using a 1/4″ thick sheet of structural aluminum, alloy 6061. The cost will be much higher and the weight will be the same as for the 1′ thick piece of ash. That’s because the density of aluminum is 2.7 g/cc, more than three times that of ash. Aluminum 6061is four times stiffer than ash, with an elastic constant of 10,000,000 psi, but the resistance to bending is proportional to thickness cubed; and 1/4 cubed is 1/64. We thus find that the 125 lb tabletop of Al alloy will deflect 3.11 inches, about 16 times more than ash, far too much to be acceptable. We could switch to thicker aluminum, 3/8″ for example, but the weight would be 50% higher now, the cost would be yet 50% higher, and the deflection would still be too high, 0.92 inches. Things get even worse with steel since steel is yet-denser, a 1/4″ sheet of steel would deflect about as much as the 3/8″ aluminum, but would weigh about twice as muc. For this application, and many others like it, wood is likely the best choice; its light weight per strength and low cost can’t be beat.

Robert E. Buxbaum, January 11, 2022

Ivanpah’s solar electric worse than trees

1 Reply

Recently the DoE committed 1.6 billion dollars to the completion of the last two of three solar-natural gas-electric plants on a 10 mi2 site at Lake Ivanpah in California. The site is rated to produce 370 MW of power, in a facility that uses far more land than nuclear power, at a cost significantly higher than nuclear. The 3900 MW Drax plant (UK) cost 1.1 Billion dollars, and produces 10 times more power on a much smaller site. Ivanpah needs a lot of land because its generators require 173,500 billboard-size, sun-tracking mirrors to heat boilers atop three 750 foot towers (2 1/2 times the statue of liberty). The boilers feed steam to low pressure, low efficiency (28% efficiency) Siemens turbines. At night, natural gas provides heat to make the steam, but only at the same, low efficiency. Siemens makes higher efficiency turbine plants (59% efficiency) but these can not be used here because the solar oven temperature is only 900°F (500°C), while normal Siemens plants operate at 3650°F (2000°C).

The Ivanpau thermal solar-natural gas project will look like The Crescent Dunes Thermal-solar project shown here, but will be bigger.

The first construction of the Ivanpah thermal solar-natural-gas project; Each circle mirrors extend out to cover about 2 square miles of the 10mi2 site.

So far, the first of the three towers is operational, but it has been producing at only 30% of rated low-efficiency output. These are described as “growing pains.” There are also problems with cooked birds, blinded pilots, and the occasional fire from the misaligned death ray — more pains, I guess. There is also the problem of lightning. When hit by lightning the mirrors shatter into millions of shards of glass over a 30 foot radius, according to Argus, the mirror cleaning company. This presents a less-than attractive environmental impact.

As an exercise, I thought I’d compare this site’s electric output to the amount one could generate using a wood-burning boiler fed by trees growing on a similar sized (10 sq. miles) site. Trees are cheap, but only about 10% efficient at converting solar power to chemical energy, thus you might imagine that trees could not match the power of the Ivanpah plant, but dry wood burns hot, at 1100 -1500°C, so the efficiency of a wood-powered steam turbine will be higher, about 45%. 

About 820 MW of sunlight falls on every 1 mi2 plot, or 8200 MW for the Ivanpah site. If trees convert 10% of this to chemical energy, and we convert 45% of that to electricity, we find the site will generate 369 MW of electric power, or exactly the output that Ivanpah is rated for. The cost of trees is far cheaper than mirrors, and electricity from wood burning is typically cost 4¢/kWh, and the environmental impact of tree farming is likely to be less than that of the solar mirrors mentioned above. 

There is another advantage to the high temperature of the wood fire. The use of high temperature turbines means that any power made at night with natural gas will be produced at higher efficiency. The Ivanpah turbines output at low temperature and low efficiency when burning natural gas (at night) and thus output half the half the power of a normal Siemens plant for every BTU of gas. Because of this, it seems that the Ivanpah plant may use as much natural gas to make its 370 MW during a 12 hour night as would a higher efficiency system operating 24 hours, day and night. The additional generation by solar thus, might be zero. 

If you think the problems here are with the particular design, I should also note that the Ivanpah solar project is just one of several our Obama-government is funding, and none are doing particularly well. As another example, the $1.45 B solar project on farmland near Gila Bend Arizona is rated to produce 35 MW, about 1/10 of the Ivanpah project at 2/3 the cost. It was built in 2010 and so far has not produced any power.

Robert E. Buxbaum, March 12, 2014. I’ve tried using wood to make green gasoline. No luck so far. And I’ve come to doubt the likelihood that we can stop global warming.

My failed process for wood to green gasoline

2 Replies

Most researchers publish the results of their successful projects, and ignore the rest. It’s an understandable failing given the cost and work to publish and the general sense that the project that flops indicated a loser – researcher. Still, it’s a shame, and I’d like to break from it here to describe a worthwhile project of mine that failed — turning wood into green gasoline. You may come to believe the project worthwhile too, and figure that you might learn from my story some pathways to avoid if you decide to try it. Besides I figure that it’s an interesting tale. All success stories are similar, I find; failure can come in many ways.

Failure can come from incorrect thinking – assumptions that are wrong. One basis of my thinking was the observation that gasoline, for the most part, was crude-oil that had been fluffed up with hydrogen. The density you buy weighs about 5.5 lb/gallon while crude oil weighs 9 lb/gallon. The difference is hydrogen. Perhaps wood too could be turned into gasoline if hydrogen were added. Another insight was that the structure of wood was the structure of a long chain -alcohol,  —(CHOH)-(CHOH)-(CHOH)—. My company had long experience breaking alcohols to make hydrogen. I figured we could do something similar with wood, fluffing up the wood by breaking the long-chain alcohols to short ones.

A possible first reaction step would be to break a C-O-C bond, a ketone bond, with hydrogen:

—(CHOH)-(CH2O)-(CHOH)— + H2 –>  —(CHOH)-CH2OH + CH2OH—

The next reaction step, I imagined was de-oxygenation:

—(CHOH)-CH2OH  +  H2 –>  —(CHOH)-CH3  + H2O

At this point, we are well on the way to making gasoline, or making a gasoline-relevant alcohol like C6H11-OH. The reactions I wanted were exothermic, meaning they would probably “go” — in actuality -∆G is the determinate of reaction favorability, but usually a -∆H and -∆G go together. Of course there are other reactions that I could have worried about –Ones that produce nasty goop. Among these:

–(CHOH)-(CH2O)-(CHOH)—  –> –(CO)-(C)-(CHOH)— + H2O +H2

I didn’t worry about these reactions because I figured I could outrun them using the right combination of a high hydrogen pressure, the right (low) temperature and the right catalyst. I may have been wrong. Then again, perhaps I picked the wrong catalyst – Fe2O3/ rust, or the wrong set of conditions. I picked Fe2O3 because it was cheap and active.

I convinced myself that Fe2O3 was sufficiently specific to get the product to a good 5-6 carbon compounds for gasoline. Wood celluloses are composed of five and six-carbon ring structure, and the cost of wood is very low per energy. What could go wrong? I figured that starting with these 5-6 carbon ring structures, virtually guaranteed getting high octane products. With the low cost and all the heat energy of the wood, wood + H2 seemed like a winning way to store and transport energy. If i got 6 carbon alcohols and similar compounds they’d have high-octane and the right vapor pressures and the products should be soluble in ordinary gasoline.

And the price was right; gasoline was about $3.50/ gallon, while wood was essentially free.  Hydrogen isn’t that expensive, even using electrolysis, and membrane reactors (a major product of our company) had the potential to make it cheaper. Wood + Hydrogen seemed like the cheaper version of syngas: CO +H2, and rust is similar to normal Fischer Tropsch catalyst. My costs would be low, and I’d expected to get better conversion since I should get fewer low molecular weight products like methane, ethane and methanol. Everything fundamental looked like it was in my favor.

With all the fundamentals in place, I figured my only problem would be to design a reasonably cheap reactor. At first I considered a fluidized bed reactor, but decided on a packed bed reactor instead, 8″ long by 3/4″ OD. This was a tube, filled with wood chips and iron oxide as a catalyst. I introduced high pressure hydrogen via a 150 psi hydrogen + 5% He mix. I hoped to see gasoline and water come out the other end. (I had the hydrogen – helium mix left over from a previous experiment, and was paying rental; otherwise I would have used pure hydrogen). I used heat tape and a controller to keep the temperature near-constant.

Controlling the temperature was key, I thought, to my aim of avoiding dehydration and the formation of new carbon-carbon bonds. At too high a temperature, the cellulose molecules would combine and lose water to form a brown high molecular weight tar called bio-oil, as well as methane and char. Bio-oil is formed the same way you form caramel from sugar, and as with sugar, it’s nothing you’d want to put in a car. If I operated at too low a temperature (or with the wrong catalyst) the reaction would be too slow, and the capital costs would be excessive. I could keep the temperature in the right (Goldilocks) temperature, I thought with the right catalyst and the right (high) hydrogen pressure.

No matter how I did this, I knew that I’d get some carbon-carbon bond formation, and perhaps a little char, but so long as it wasn’t too much it should be manageable. I figured I could hydrogenate the tar and remove the char at the end of the process. Most of the gasoline energy would come from the trees, and not the hydrogen, and there would be little hydrogen wasted forming methane. Trees would always be cheap: they grow quickly, and are great at capturing solar energy. Many cities pay for disposal of their tree waste, so perhaps a city would pay us to take their wood chips. With cheap wood, the economics would be good so long as used all the hydrogen I put in, and got some reasonable fraction of energy from the wood. 

i began my reaction at 150°C with 50 psi hydrogen. At these conditions, I saw no reaction; I then raised the temperature to 200°C, then raised the pressure to 100 psi (still nothing) and then tried 250°C, still at 100psi. By now we were producing water but it was impossible to tell if we were hydrogenating the cellulose to gasoline, or dehydrating the cellulose to bio-oil.

As it turned out we were getting something worse that bio-oil: bio-oil gunk. Instead of the nasty brown liquid that’s made when wood is cooked to dehydration (water removal, caramelization), I got something that was nastier than I’d imagined possible. The wood molecules did not form nice chains but combined to form acidic, aromatic gunk (aromatic in both senses: benzine-type molecules and smelly) that still contained unreacted wood as a sort of press-board. The gunk was corrosive and reactive; it probably contained phenol, and seemed bent on reacting to form a phenolic glue. I found the gunk was insoluble in most everything: water, gasoline, oil, methanol (the only exception was ethanol). As best I can tell, you can not react this gunk with hydrogen to make gasoline as it is non-volatile, and almost impossible to get out of my clogged reactor. Perhaps a fluidized bed would be would be better, but I’m afraid it would form wood clumps even there. 

I plan to try again, perhaps using higher pressure hydrogen and perhaps a liquid hydrogen carrier, to get the hydrogen to the core of the wood and speed the catalysis of the desired products. The key is finding a carrier that is not too expensive or that can be easily recovered.

Robert E. Buxbaum, Dec 13, 2013. Here’s something on a visit to my lab, on adding hydrogen to automobile engines, and on the right way to do science. And here’s my calculation for how much wood a woodchuck chucks if a woodchuck could chuck wood, (100 lbs/ night) plus why woodchucks do not chuck wood like beavers.