Replies

1. 
   BoardmanWI | Jul 14, 2009 03:44pm | #1

   I've been told - by someone who has pulled logs from Lake Superior - that the wood will be wet to a depth of .375 inch or so. Sounds like milling to thickness and then edge trimming should result in essentially dry lumber - but I'd still probably sticker that for a while just to be safe.

1. 
   KeithNewton | Jul 14, 2009 11:33pm | #2

   W Pine weighs 26# per square foot, which is half that of water. For it to sink to the bottom, means that it would have to soak in a volume of water equal to half the volume of the log, so I am pretty sure that will be a bit deeper than .375". I think I would saw it a few days after getting it out. It will dry faster without splitting. Although I would not expect much. I would think that it takes a long time for it to soak up that much water, so there probably is a fair amount of degrade.

1. 
   skandic | Jul 15, 2009 12:20am | #3

   Well I may have to pull a log out and cut to chunks and see if there is usable lumber inside. Thanks for the info.

2. 
   PheasantHunter | Jul 15, 2009 05:08am | #4

   26# per sq foot or did you mean cubic foot?

1. 
   KeithNewton | Jul 15, 2009 05:21am | #5

   Did I say that? he he, Well you caught me making a slip. Thanks for the correction.Water is 62.4 #.

3. 
   BoardmanWI | Jul 15, 2009 06:20pm | #6

   I believe that volume/weight figure is derived from "modern" pine, if you will. The virgin forest that produced the "sinkers" common during the lumber boom, produced slow growing, very dense wood. I've seen some of the recovered lumber and the number of growth rings per inch is easily 4 to 5 times greater than in "modern" pine. Some samples have more than 100 growth rings per inch. There were very few openings in the virgin forest so trees were shaded and grew much more slowly. Thus denser, they needed to absorb very little water to become heavy enough to sink.

   Edited 7/15/2009 11:21 am ET by BoardmanWI

1. 
   KeithNewton | Jul 15, 2009 07:05pm | #7

   That seems like it would be logical, but I am not sure that your theory holds water, if you would pardon the pun. Over nearly 40 years as a professional woodworker, I have used plenty of woods of many species which were from old-growth timber, even some with ~ 100 rings per inch, but I don't think that is the case, especially in soft woods. Even in hardwoods, when the annual rings are smaller, this usually translates with a greater portion of early wood, which is the part with larger pores in oak, relative to the latewood, which is the more dense portion. However, maybe I missed it, but I didn't catch that the tree or trees questioned by the original poster said that these were sinker logs from early years of logging when they were floated to the mill. There is probably a larger quantity of wood on the bottom of lakes that are trees which fell into the lake, or washed into them from upstream somewhere. Who knows how long those logs laid on the ground decaying before getting washed down in a flood.

1. 
   BoardmanWI | Jul 15, 2009 08:45pm | #8

   It's not just my pet theory - rather the facts as described by those actually involved in recovering those logs, and all the written material regarding that. Further backed by my visit to Superior Underwater Logging in Ashland, WI. If you wish to continue the dabate perhaps you should call them.

2. 
   KeithNewton | Jul 15, 2009 10:43pm | #9

   I think you sending me a link would be a better idea.

3. 
   BoardmanWI | Jul 16, 2009 12:37am | #10

   Sure, skippy:http://www.timelesstimber.com/contact/A suggestion?...when you start out with "in my 40 years of blah, blah, blah" it usually indicates you're just blowing smoke.

4. 
   KeithNewton | Jul 16, 2009 12:55am | #11

   I didn't see anything supporting your assertion in the FAQ. Do you have another link?

5. 
   Joe Sullivan | Jul 16, 2009 02:06am | #12

   IN the north woods and the southeast, many of the rivers and lakes on which log drives occurred have sinker logs. They are not deadfall that washed down, or if they are, the saw cuts on each end are truly unusual natural phenomina

6. 
   KeithNewton | Jul 16, 2009 04:51am | #13

   Skippy? I am sorry if mentioning how long I have been working offended you, or for that matter just feeling that I didn't agree with you. I only mentioned the time reference because back up until ~ 30 years ago, Most decks that I built were from redwood or cedar which was sawn from old-growth trees. After doing a job out to CA for someone, then traveling up the coast just to hike through some Redwood groves, I could not bring myself to add to the destruction of what little was left. Since you don't have any information in your profile, I have no way of knowing what your life experience you speak from. I am well aware of the difference in juvenile wood, or faster grown second growth, from that of older trees. I bough my woodmizer in 1999, just to take advantage of the larger urban trees that were being offered to me regularly. I usually don't bother with a tree smaller than 3' diameter. I also have a couple of friends who are dendrochronologist whom I like having discussions with and reading any information of theirs that I can find. They are Dr David Sthale at the U of AR, and Richard Guyette in MO. Richard has done studies on trees which wash into lakes. Here is a link to start you off. There are plenty of others if you like reading this. http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4154/focus/ancient/http://www.uark.edu/misc/dendro/publications.htmlI met Dr Stahle about twenty years ago after finding and turning some Eastern Red Cedar that had 500 annual rings. I took him a slice to add to his collection. One of his students did his masters thesis using my wood for the beginning of his search area. Learning to read the annual rings and other information contained in the defects and injuries adds a lot of interest to my woodworking. I hope I am not still a light-weight like smoke. I guess I need to do better promoting myself. Here is my old website, which is about to go away. I am working on a new one. http://www.treetales.com/

7. 
   philip | Jul 16, 2009 08:53am | #14

   To answer the question: convert the log(s) as soon as possible, drowned or not.
   Rather than speculating , let's hope Skandic recovers a log or two tomorrow and does some sawing soon after so we can know what he found.
   Meanwhile I would be paying close attention to what Keith says as he has converted some tons of logs and turned them into pieces of note....Philip Marcou

2. 
   DHAM | Jul 16, 2009 03:14pm | #15

   Be aware that you might need a permit to recover that log.  You may already have checked into it, but most sinker logs require a permit.

1. 
   skandic | Jul 17, 2009 04:24am | #16

   I have talked with my local gov't forestry officials and have gotten a verbal OK for a couple logs. They are sinkers from log floating days likely white but could be red pine.

1. 
   DHAM | Jul 17, 2009 06:56am | #17

   That is great! I am looking forward to some pictures of the sawn boards and the finished piece that results from all your work!! I envy you.....