4 ms·

Lovely idea. I would like to see a comparison of the energy requirement for hardening wood this way vs. making steel. Would give a better sense of whether this

Lovely idea. I would like to see a comparison of the energy requirement for hardening wood this way vs. making steel. Would give a better sense of whether this is a technology worth pursuing as one path toward decarbonising the future.

excalibur 5y ago
Also what chemicals are used, where do those come from, how sustainable are they, are there adverse environmental impacts in their production
- rfrey 5y ago
  I heard an interview on the CBC and they mentioned sodium hydroxide.
- napier 5y ago
  To dissolve lignin? I haven’t read the paper yet but doubt it’s anything terrible or too exotic. Probably a recipe based around sodium hydroxide (NaOH).
- pstuart 5y ago
  If this is the same bit that's hit this page just recently, the chemicals used were sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfite (to remove the lignin) and then food grade oil to seal it.
  - jackcviers3 5y ago
    So you can do this at home with a hydraulic press and a torch then? Would be kind of fun.
- ls15 5y ago
  Pyridine and DMSO seem to be the best solvents for lignin. https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/resources/solubility-of-lignin-and-acetylated-lignin-in-organic-solvents/ https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/resources/solubility-of-li... DMSO is a by-product of cellulose production. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfoxide#Synthesis_and_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfoxide#Synthesis_a...
marcinzm 5y ago
I'd like to see specific comparisons in physical properties versus steel and specifically which steel they are comparing to. Including in physical dimensions since their nail seems fairly thick. Steel is, as I understand it, hundreds of different variants each with their own physical properties. For example, they say 23 times harder in the article than regular wood. Wood has a Brinell scale of up to 7 although most is less. Times 23 that comes out to 161. Mild steel is 120. However hardened tool steel is 900.
- klyrs 5y ago
  It's safe to assume that they're comparing to mild steel, which nails and table knives are made from. That said, I'm amused by the thought of a hardened tool steel nail... make sure you wear safety glasses and gloves, because when that shatters, the shards will be sharp and speedy. Here's hoping it's the nail, and not your hammer.
- mdpye 5y ago
  I had some questions about that too. It looks cool, to be sure, but I watched the video of the nail being hammered through some boards, and... let's just say I'm not so timid with steel nails! For what they were showing, if you were going for "equivalent to steel", I'd expect to see a tap to secure the nail and then probably only two strokes to sink it. They tap it a hundred times, which begs the question of what would happen if you actually hit it. Strength comes in many dimensions.
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    I was thinking "how would this do if fired from a nail gun" since as I understand it most commercial work is not done by hand nowadays anyways.
    - ars 5y ago
      Already exists: https://www.beck-lignoloc.com/en https://www.beck-lignoloc.com/en
ComputerGuru 5y ago
Even if it were to take more energy it might still be a win since it would effectively lock up the carbon in a (basically) non-decomposing form. You’d have to look at the net emissions taking into account the amount of carbon dioxide that would have been released as that piece of wood decomposed (or you can look at it from the perspective of the CO2 removed from the atmosphere by that wood).
- mdpye 5y ago
  Careful. Plastics lock up carbon in "basically non-decomposable form" and that is proving problematic. And the problem isn't that we mined the carbon. Death (decomposition) is a critical part of the circle of life...
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    From an emissions perspective, the problem with plastics is that they lock up a tiny portion of the CO2 that was previously locked up as petroleum (the remainder is released into the atmosphere as byproduct). If we had “mined” plastic directly out of the ground, it would be fine to use (again from an emissions perspective), though not a net win since it would have already been “locked up” whereas wood only temporarily locks up hydrocarbons until it is cut down, used, and then ultimately decomposed. This would break that cycle. From a non-emissions perspective, wood doesn’t have the same “microplastics” problem (although who knows what this bastardized wood might end up having).
    - krick 5y ago
      Sure, everything you are saying is correct, but you two are basically concerned about different problems, and, FWIW, I'm honestly more concerned about your "opponent"'s one. All this CO₂ emission stuff got way more political lately than it perhaps should be, so I can easily imagine selling stuff made out of bastardized wood as "eco-friendly" to the concerned customers, while in reality, production and everything else accounted for it will be more net-harmful for the ecology than the "traditional" (plastic or otherwise) alternative. And (risking to start another flamewar here) even that being put aside, I'm not even sure we should be as much concerned about CO₂ emissions as we currently are... In the meanwhile, we somehow stop focusing on the whole bunch of other problems, that definitely aren't gonna solve themselves as well. Like, the fact that the oceans are turning into a huge dumpster for plastics that aren't going to magically dissolve in the next couple of hundreds of years. Or like we are only concerned about burning oil not being "green energy", and somehow skip over the fact, that we are literally burning millions of tons of substance each day, that we cannot produce and that doesn't renew itself (practically speaking), while being the ONLY substance suitable for making thousands of materials that we use to build basically everything for the last 50 of years (and it doesn't seem like we are going to find a better alternative soon).

excalibur 5y ago

Also what chemicals are used, where do those come from, how sustainable are they, are there adverse environmental impacts in their production

rfrey 5y ago
I heard an interview on the CBC and they mentioned sodium hydroxide.
napier 5y ago
To dissolve lignin? I haven’t read the paper yet but doubt it’s anything terrible or too exotic. Probably a recipe based around sodium hydroxide (NaOH).
pstuart 5y ago
If this is the same bit that's hit this page just recently, the chemicals used were sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfite (to remove the lignin) and then food grade oil to seal it.
- jackcviers3 5y ago
  So you can do this at home with a hydraulic press and a torch then? Would be kind of fun.
ls15 5y ago
Pyridine and DMSO seem to be the best solvents for lignin. https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/resources/solubility-of-lignin-and-acetylated-lignin-in-organic-solvents/ https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/resources/solubility-of-li... DMSO is a by-product of cellulose production. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfoxide#Synthesis_and_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfoxide#Synthesis_a...

marcinzm 5y ago

I'd like to see specific comparisons in physical properties versus steel and specifically which steel they are comparing to. Including in physical dimensions since their nail seems fairly thick. Steel is, as I understand it, hundreds of different variants each with their own physical properties. For example, they say 23 times harder in the article than regular wood. Wood has a Brinell scale of up to 7 although most is less. Times 23 that comes out to 161. Mild steel is 120. However hardened tool steel is 900.

klyrs 5y ago
It's safe to assume that they're comparing to mild steel, which nails and table knives are made from. That said, I'm amused by the thought of a hardened tool steel nail... make sure you wear safety glasses and gloves, because when that shatters, the shards will be sharp and speedy. Here's hoping it's the nail, and not your hammer.
mdpye 5y ago
I had some questions about that too. It looks cool, to be sure, but I watched the video of the nail being hammered through some boards, and... let's just say I'm not so timid with steel nails! For what they were showing, if you were going for "equivalent to steel", I'd expect to see a tap to secure the nail and then probably only two strokes to sink it. They tap it a hundred times, which begs the question of what would happen if you actually hit it. Strength comes in many dimensions.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  I was thinking "how would this do if fired from a nail gun" since as I understand it most commercial work is not done by hand nowadays anyways.
  - ars 5y ago
    Already exists: https://www.beck-lignoloc.com/en https://www.beck-lignoloc.com/en

ComputerGuru 5y ago

Even if it were to take more energy it might still be a win since it would effectively lock up the carbon in a (basically) non-decomposing form. You’d have to look at the net emissions taking into account the amount of carbon dioxide that would have been released as that piece of wood decomposed (or you can look at it from the perspective of the CO2 removed from the atmosphere by that wood).

mdpye 5y ago
Careful. Plastics lock up carbon in "basically non-decomposable form" and that is proving problematic. And the problem isn't that we mined the carbon. Death (decomposition) is a critical part of the circle of life...
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  From an emissions perspective, the problem with plastics is that they lock up a tiny portion of the CO2 that was previously locked up as petroleum (the remainder is released into the atmosphere as byproduct). If we had “mined” plastic directly out of the ground, it would be fine to use (again from an emissions perspective), though not a net win since it would have already been “locked up” whereas wood only temporarily locks up hydrocarbons until it is cut down, used, and then ultimately decomposed. This would break that cycle. From a non-emissions perspective, wood doesn’t have the same “microplastics” problem (although who knows what this bastardized wood might end up having).
  - krick 5y ago
    Sure, everything you are saying is correct, but you two are basically concerned about different problems, and, FWIW, I'm honestly more concerned about your "opponent"'s one. All this CO₂ emission stuff got way more political lately than it perhaps should be, so I can easily imagine selling stuff made out of bastardized wood as "eco-friendly" to the concerned customers, while in reality, production and everything else accounted for it will be more net-harmful for the ecology than the "traditional" (plastic or otherwise) alternative. And (risking to start another flamewar here) even that being put aside, I'm not even sure we should be as much concerned about CO₂ emissions as we currently are... In the meanwhile, we somehow stop focusing on the whole bunch of other problems, that definitely aren't gonna solve themselves as well. Like, the fact that the oceans are turning into a huge dumpster for plastics that aren't going to magically dissolve in the next couple of hundreds of years. Or like we are only concerned about burning oil not being "green energy", and somehow skip over the fact, that we are literally burning millions of tons of substance each day, that we cannot produce and that doesn't renew itself (practically speaking), while being the ONLY substance suitable for making thousands of materials that we use to build basically everything for the last 50 of years (and it doesn't seem like we are going to find a better alternative soon).