Page 1 of 5

Wood

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 8:33 am
by WhatScience?
Hey Guys,

I was wondering if you guys could share some links as to where I can buy wood skinnier than the normal 1/8"...where do you guys go to buy good wood....Do you prefer sheets or pre cut into rods?

Re: Wood

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 1:33 pm
by Random Human
Hey Guys,

I was wondering if you guys could share some links as to where I can buy wood skinnier than the normal 1/8"...where do you guys go to buy good wood....Do you prefer sheets or pre cut into rods?
3/32 works fine.
Go online to specialized balsa
Precut is always more precise and accurate. Cutting is a hassle, in my opinion.

Re: Wood

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 2:02 pm
by Balsa Man
Hey Guys,

I was wondering if you guys could share some links as to where I can buy wood skinnier than the normal 1/8"...where do you guys go to buy good wood....Do you prefer sheets or pre cut into rods?
3/32 works fine.
Go online to specialized balsa
Precut is always more precise and accurate. Cutting is a hassle, in my opinion.
I'm curious; you asked essentially the same question back on September 17, in the first "wood" thread you started, and you got a number of replies; is there something particular that didn't get answered??

Re: Random Human's comment that 3/32 "works fine", true up to a point. But you will not be able to beat a well engineered 1/8" leg tower with 3/32" legs. 5/32" legs will actually give you a slight theoretical advantage over 1/8". The problem applying that theoretical advantage is that it takes very low density, like down close to the limits of what balsa exists in, and finding, in that density, a few sticks that are at the upper end of buckling strength that can be found at that density. Talking 0.95 gr/36", with a 36" buckling strength over 22gr.

Re: Wood

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 2:14 pm
by WhatScience?
@Balsa Man: My team just asked me to pose the question again because responses had died out and they wanted a little more info,

Adding on...do you think the 1/16" x 1/8" is a good option...how does it stack up against the others?

Re: Wood

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 2:43 pm
by Unome
Adding on...do you think the 1/16" x 1/8" is a good option...how does it stack up against the others?
Typically, pieces in compression gain nothing from rectangular cross-sections since they'll usually buckle in the weakest direction.

Re: Wood

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 4:07 pm
by Balsa Man
@Balsa Man: My team just asked me to pose the question again because responses had died out and they wanted a little more info,

Adding on...do you think the 1/16" x 1/8" is a good option...how does it stack up against the others?
That's cool; understand. The previous replies you got pretty well covered the options out there.. The only place I know of that you can order in 1/10 gr increments is Specialized Balsa. You can go to your local hobby store - Hobbytown, Michaels, etc., with a scale and sort thru what they have, ans if you get really lucky, you might find some sticks that are light while getting you the buckling strength needed (which will depend on the bracing interval you want to use).

No, rectangular leg cross section is not a good idea. It is actually a very bad idea. It is not that it will "usually" buckle in the weakest direction, it is that it absolutely always will. So, on two sides of the tower, you'd need a bracing interval that would work for 1/16" cross section, and on the other two sides, bracing that would work for 1/8". Those bracing intervals would not.....line up; you'd have some segments where a leg segment would only be braced from one side/one plane, instead of 2 braces at 90 degrees, at the same point on a leg. The buckling strength across the 1/16" dimension will be only 1/16th of the buckling strength across the 1/8" dimension.

Re: Wood

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 5:52 pm
by Unome
[So, on two sides of the tower, you'd need a bracing interval that would work for 1/16" cross section, and on the other two sides, bracing that would work for 1/8".
This was what I was trying to account for with "usually", although I didn't think about the fact that one would need varying bracing intervals.

Re: Wood

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 7:05 pm
by WhatScience?
[So, on two sides of the tower, you'd need a bracing interval that would work for 1/16" cross section, and on the other two sides, bracing that would work for 1/8".
This was what I was trying to account for with "usually", although I didn't think about the fact that one would need varying bracing intervals.
makes sense....

What would be better, the 3/32 .6 or the 1/16 .3 (densities)

Re: Wood

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 7:54 pm
by Random Human
[So, on two sides of the tower, you'd need a bracing interval that would work for 1/16" cross section, and on the other two sides, bracing that would work for 1/8".
This was what I was trying to account for with "usually", although I didn't think about the fact that one would need varying bracing intervals.
makes sense....

What would be better, the 3/32 .6 or the 1/16 .3 (densities)
Uh what do you mean what would be better. There's no better.
I mean in terms of strength, 3/32 .6
But, efficiency wise, it depends on your tower.
If your question was 1/16 .6 and 3/32 .6. The answer would be 3/32. More volume (assuming same density) > less volume


Please clarify. Read through last years forum. Bassically every question is answered there.

Random

Re: Wood

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 8:12 pm
by Balsa Man
[So, on two sides of the tower, you'd need a bracing interval that would work for 1/16" cross section, and on the other two sides, bracing that would work for 1/8".
This was what I was trying to account for with "usually", although I didn't think about the fact that one would need varying bracing intervals.
makes sense....

What would be better, the 3/32 .6 or the 1/16 .3 (densities)
What do you mean, "better"?