了解木材
Understanding wood
R. Bruce Hoadley · 初版 2000 年
2人推荐
4位读者提及
4次提及
“《Understanding Wood》经修订补充了过去20年间发展出的复合材料、粘合剂和饰面工艺的新信息。R. Bruce Hoadley 深入探讨了木材的本质及其属性、木材加工技术基础以及木工的原材料。你将学习到锯切、风干、机加工、拼接、弯曲、紧固和涂装木材的最佳方法，并探究木材与水分之间至关重要的相互作用。你还能了解到最新的木制品资讯及其采购途径。”——护封文案。
Hacker News 上怎么说
正在加载完整评论……
我做木工科技项目的时候，这个网站里的《The Wood Book》帮了大忙。但在我看来（本帖里其他人也这么觉得），最棒的木工书还得是《Understanding Wood》。那本书简直绝了（next level），是我查阅任何木材资料或问题时的首选。要是有人对如何用 CNC 把大批桃花心木和紫檀木加工成可出货的科技产品感兴趣，我写了篇……
The Wood Book that’s part of this site was a huge help to me when I did my woodworking tech projects. The best wood book, IMO (and others in this thread) is Understanding Wood. That book is next level and is my go to for any wood reference or question. If anybody is interested in what it takes to CNC a lot of mahogany and rosewood into a shippable tech product, I wrote up…
……油类涂料按理说应该有点防水效果，但实际上并没有。虽然比打蜡或什么都不涂强，但比清漆差远了。这是我书架上 Bob Flexner 写的那本《Understanding Wood Finishes》里的表格。参考价值很高：https://imgur.com/a/TzacsLs
…oil would offer some water protection because of the oil but they don't. Better than wax or nothing but much worse than varnishes. This is a table from a book on my shelf by Bob Flexner on the subject, Understanding Wood Finishes. It's a good reference https://imgur.com/a/TzacsLs
这是为什么？树液含量的问题吗？我刚开始读 Hoadley 的《Understanding Wood》[0]，搞得我现在对木材特性特别感兴趣。[0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1561583588/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...
Why is that? Sap content? I just started reading Hoadley's "Understanding Wood" [0], which has gotten me interested in wood's characteristics. [0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1561583588/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...
……（任何精细的物件，或者像温莎椅这类采用插接结构的家具，基本上就是使用时需要有一定韧性形变的东西）更合适。我得翻翻我的 [Hoadley](https://www.tauntonstore.com/understanding-wood-2nd-edition-...) 来确认一下，但我认为你这是在用 modulus of elasticity（弹性模量）来换取 modulus of rupture（抗弯强度）。
…(anything delicate, or with staked construction such as Windsor chairs, basically stuff which needs to bend some under use) is preferable. I'd need to break out my [Hoadley](https://www.tauntonstore.com/understanding-wood-2nd-edition-...) to confirm, but my belief is that you are trading modulus of elasticity for modulus of rupture.