PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

[Rod Speed]

The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote

Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote

Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.

Yes it is.

You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood.

Wrong with dry wood.

Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.

Depends entirely on the level of voltage
applied, just like with any insulator.

Well in the context of grounding a laptop,

The thread had diverged from that.

wood is useless and would act as an insulator.
In the context of the 'bandstand' incident,
water was the conductor - NOT wood.

In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,

Irrelevant to where it diverged to.

Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning
was conducted by water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.

Pity about the situation that it diverged to.

Which was the situation where water was the
main conductive substance - NOT the wood.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

Sorry mate, but that 'general question' was never part of the
thread.

Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.

It's simple. In this context of this thread, wood is NOT a conductor.

Wrong, as always. Just like with ANY conductor, its ALWAYS
possible to exceed the breakdown voltage and get it to conduct.
Most obviously when the wood isnt that thick and you have the
lightning hitting metal on the weather side, and then the wood
CAN break down even when it isnt wet.

The only time this can happen is when there is
no possible way for the lightning to find ground.

Wrong, lightning aint that predictable or reliable.

And irrelevant to the pig ignorant claim that wood cant conduct anyway.

What happens in this situation is that it usually
'punches' or burns a hole in the material. Once
again, the material itself is not doing the conducting.

Wrong again, its the conducting that punches the hole,
stupid. Basically that energy is what frys the wood that
used to be where the hole ends up being.

That happens with tree sap too where the sap doing the
conducting vaporises and blows a fucking great hole in the tree.

Lightning still follows the path of least resistance,

Its nothing like that black and white with the DC resistance.

and considering that air breaks down at a much
lower voltage than timber, the air will always win.

Not if there aint any air in the path because there is wood there, stupid.

 

[McGrath]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message

You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

Sorry mate, but that 'general question' was never part of the thread.

Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.

I said wood wouldn't conduct as a grounding measure for a laptop case.
Likewise I said wood was not the conductor in the Geelong incident - both
are true, both are correct.

You said wood could be used to ground a wooden laptop and was the conductor
at Geelong - both are false, both are incorrect.

So explain to me me how I made a fool of myself? The fact that wood
'sometimes' is a conductor is irrelevent in this thread.

A pre-school student would be able to understand that - why do you have so
much trouble?

 

[Clockmeister]

"McGrath" <no@email> wrote in message
news:4387a6de$0$25858$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message

You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

Sorry mate, but that 'general question' was never part of the thread.

Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.

I said wood wouldn't conduct as a grounding measure for a laptop case.
Likewise I said wood was not the conductor in the Geelong incident - both
are true, both are correct.

You said wood could be used to ground a wooden laptop and was the
conductor
at Geelong - both are false, both are incorrect.

So explain to me me how I made a fool of myself? The fact that wood
'sometimes' is a conductor is irrelevent in this thread.

A pre-school student would be able to understand that - why do you have so
much trouble?

Just let the ignorant old fool have it to shut him up, we all know he is
wrong.

 

[Mark Harriss]

Rod Speed wrote:

Some terminal fuckwit pom claiming to be
Mark Harriss <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote
just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.


Rod BABY!! dontcha remember me??

 

[Rod Speed]

McGrath <no@email> wrote

Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
MC <MC@nonexistant.place> wrote:
The Real Andy wrote:
Mark Harriss <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote

Wood will conduct lightning!,
what are you worried about!!.

Actually, wood doesn't.

Put enough volts across it and it certainly will.

Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.

Yes it is.

You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood.

Wrong with dry wood.

Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.

Depends entirely on the level of voltage
applied, just like with any insulator.

Well in the context of grounding a laptop,

The thread had diverged from that.

wood is useless and would act as an insulator.
In the context of the 'bandstand' incident,
water was the conductor - NOT wood.

In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,

Irrelevant to where it diverged to.

Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning
was conducted by water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.

Pity about the situation that it diverged to.

Which was the situation where water was the
main conductive substance - NOT the wood.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

Sorry mate, but that 'general question'
was never part of the thread.

Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.

I said wood wouldn't conduct as a grounding measure for a laptop case.

Liar, you said nothing of the sort in the quoting
you keep deleting and I keep restoring.

Likewise I said wood was not the conductor in the Geelong incident -

Irrelevant to whether dry wood does indeed conduct when the
voltage across it is high enough, just like with any insulator.

both are true, both are correct.

And both are irrelevant to the general statement you made.

You said wood could be used to ground a wooden laptop

No I didnt.

and was the conductor at Geelong

No I didnt.

- both are false, both are incorrect.

Pity I never made either statement.

So explain to me me how I made a fool of myself?

You clearly said

You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood.

The fact that wood 'sometimes' is a
conductor is irrelevent in this thread.

Nope. I JUST commented on that stupid pig ignorant claim that

You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood.

That is SOMETIMES true and sometimes it aint.

<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

Mark Harriss <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Some terminal fuckwit pom claiming to be
Mark Harriss <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote
just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.

Rod BABY!! dontcha remember me??

Corse I remember you.

 

[McGrath]

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4387af5c@duster.adelaide.on.net...

Just let the ignorant old fool have it to shut him up, we all know he is
wrong.

I should, but I've got a couple of days off and nothing better to do

 

[Clockmeister]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3uq2i9F125nkvU1@individual.net...

McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
MC <MC@nonexistant.place> wrote:
The Real Andy wrote:
Mark Harriss <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote

Wood will conduct lightning!,
what are you worried about!!.

Actually, wood doesn't.

Put enough volts across it and it certainly will.

Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.

Yes it is.

You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood.

Wrong with dry wood.

Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.

Depends entirely on the level of voltage
applied, just like with any insulator.

Well in the context of grounding a laptop,

The thread had diverged from that.

wood is useless and would act as an insulator.
In the context of the 'bandstand' incident,
water was the conductor - NOT wood.

In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,

Irrelevant to where it diverged to.

Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning
was conducted by water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.

Pity about the situation that it diverged to.

Which was the situation where water was the
main conductive substance - NOT the wood.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

Sorry mate, but that 'general question'
was never part of the thread.

Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.

I said wood wouldn't conduct as a grounding measure for a laptop case.

Liar, you said nothing of the sort in the quoting
you keep deleting and I keep restoring.

Likewise I said wood was not the conductor in the Geelong incident -

Irrelevant to whether dry wood does indeed conduct when the
voltage across it is high enough, just like with any insulator.

Prove it or shut up about it.

 

[Rod Speed]

McGrath <no@email> wrote

Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
MC <MC@nonexistant.place> wrote:
The Real Andy wrote:
Mark Harriss <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote

Wood will conduct lightning!,
what are you worried about!!.

Actually, wood doesn't.

Put enough volts across it and it certainly will.

Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.

Yes it is.

You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood.

Wrong with dry wood.

Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.

Depends entirely on the level of voltage
applied, just like with any insulator.

Well in the context of grounding a laptop,

The thread had diverged from that.

wood is useless and would act as an insulator.
In the context of the 'bandstand' incident,
water was the conductor - NOT wood.

In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,

Irrelevant to where it diverged to.

Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning
was conducted by water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.

Pity about the situation that it diverged to.

Which was the situation where water was the
main conductive substance - NOT the wood.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

Sorry mate, but that 'general question'
was never part of the thread.

Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.

I said wood wouldn't conduct as a
grounding measure for a laptop case.

Liar, you said nothing of the sort in the quoting
you keep deleting and I keep restoring.

"Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor. For the
purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
wood has NO conducive conductive abilities."

AFTER the thread had clearly diverted to the more general
question of whether lightning can indeed be conducted by dry wood.

So where did I get the above from?

Its obvious from the quoting that you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting where that came from.

I keep deleting to save myself having to scroll through
'reams of puerile shit' - not to hide the facts

Lying, again.

Likewise I said wood was not the conductor in the Geelong incident -

Irrelevant to whether dry wood does indeed conduct when the
voltage across it is high enough, just like with any insulator.

Which has nothing to do with this thread

Wrong, as always. It has everything to do
with the claims made at the top of the quoting.

- which was originally about the earthing on a wooden laptop case

Originally is completely irrelevant. I chose to comment on
your stupid pig ignorant claims about wood and lightning.

and somehow spread to the Geelong deaths.

Its clear that lightning was being discussed in the
quoting you keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting.

both are true, both are correct.

And both are irrelevant to the general statement you made.

"You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood."

And that is just plain wrong with dry wood and lightning.

So where did I get the above from?

Plucked it from your arse basically.

I made no general statements, I replied to the thread.

What you replied to was the general statement, stupid.

Maybe you should re-read what has been posted?

No need.

You continue to make general statements stating
wood is a conductor if the voltage is high enough.

I wasnt the first one to say, that, MC was.

Well buddy, in the context of this thread *that* is irrelevant.

Wrong, as always. Hariss made that general
claim which is clearly just plain wrong.

You said wood could be used to ground a wooden laptop

No I didnt.

Yes you did.

No I didnt. You cant quote the post where I said that, because I didnt.

and was the conductor at Geelong

No I didnt.

Yes you did.

No I didnt, I never ever mentioned Geelong at all.

Bazil/Bryan did.
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.electronics/msg/6d0b1228eef7cd77

- both are false, both are incorrect.

Pity I never made either statement.

Better re-read the thread.

No need, someone else said both of those.

So explain to me me how I made a fool of myself?

You clearly said

You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood.

Which was correct.

Nope, just plain wrong when stated as baldly as that.

The fact that wood 'sometimes' is a
conductor is irrelevent in this thread.

Nope. I JUST commented on that stupid pig ignorant claim that

You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood.

That is SOMETIMES true and sometimes it aint.

Pity that the thread was about the grounding
of a laptop using a wood case.

Pity the thread had diverged to a more
general claim about wood and lightning

You get to like that or lump it.

In this instance wood is not a conductor.

Pity it can be with lightning.

reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

So why do you keep re-posting the stuff I cut?

Because you are flagrantly dishonestly deleting it and claiming
that the thread had not diverged to discussing lightning and
wood when that is clearly exactly what had happened.

Bit hypocritical, isn't it.

More of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead.

 

[John]

dmm wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:34:46 +1030, John <sittingbythepool@internode.on.net> wrote:

John wrote:

If you have ever wanted a wood computer or a wood laptop

http://www.gostyle.com/



They're pretty pricey too

I recently saw that Bunnings has some adhesive backed veneers for about $15 a sheet
(about 450mm x 900mm) teak, jarrah, tasmanian oak, etc.

But this isn't some el cheapo sheet. What they do is strip
your pc or laptop and put it into a custom made housing
which has wood on the outside

 

[Rod Speed]

Damien McBain <askme@for.it> wrote:

Mark Harriss committed to the eternal aether...:

Clockmeister wrote:



Prove it or shut up about it.





From the Wikipedia definition for dielectric breakdown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_strength

"The maximum electric field strength that it can withstand
intrinsically without breaking down, i.e., without experiencing
failure of its insulating properties."


IOW when it's insulating properties fail it becomes a CONDUCTOR.


From the Werner PDF file on fibreglass ladders for the electrical
industry, some tests on the CONDUCTIVITY of wood and fibreglass
ladders:
http://www.wernerladder.com/catalog/files/rc81.pdf

2. DC leakage current(in uA) as related to conditioning for 10"
electrode spacing, 80% relative humidity conditioned at 22° C.

Applied Voltage
Time Wood Fiberglass Wood Fiberglass
As Received 90 KV 90 KV 7.0 1.0
24 hours 50 KV 90 KV 48.0 1.4
48 hours 50 KV 90 KV 67.0 1.9
72 hours 50 KV 90 KV 120.0 2.4


As you can see at 50KV wood begins to CONDUCT, now what part of this
concept don't you understand?. Are you aware that lightning is higher
in voltage than 50KV?.

The voltage in a laptop computer isn't

Pity what was being discussed was lightning, fuckwit.

 

[Rod Speed]

Damien McBain <askme@for.it> wrote

Mark Harriss wrote
Clockmeister wrote:

I *know* wood or any insulator conducts if the voltage is high enough,
I wanted to see the evidence from that lazy bullshit artist Rod.

And 50KV is pretty low, really.

I once made the mistake of trying to use once inch dia. black rubber
tubing to insulate some conductors with 47KV on them: after a few
seconds it begans to smoke heavily and start to pop: I assume the
rubber had carbon black added to colour it. The stuff was more of a
resistor than an insulator at those voltages.

Apparently hot glass is conductive from the sodium ions in it as well
heat some up till it's red and then microwave it to see a lightshow.

Maybe the wires got hot and burnt the rubber?

Unlikely with that sort of voltage on them.

The best insulation for that sort of voltage
is one of the thicker coaxs like RG8

 

[Clockmeister]

"Colin Ž" <tobyjug7@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:NK8if.4918$ea6.1277@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Someone posted ----

From the Werner PDF file on fibreglass ladders for the electrical
industry, some tests on the CONDUCTIVITY of wood and fibreglass
ladders:
http://www.wernerladder.com/catalog/files/rc81.pdf

2. DC leakage current(in uA) as related to conditioning for 10"
electrode spacing, 80% relative humidity conditioned at 22° C.

Applied Voltage
Time Wood Fiberglass Wood Fiberglass
As Received 90 KV 90 KV 7.0 1.0
24 hours 50 KV 90 KV 48.0 1.4
48 hours 50 KV 90 KV 67.0 1.9
72 hours 50 KV 90 KV 120.0 2.4


As you can see at 50KV wood begins to CONDUCT, now what part of this
concept don't you understand?. Are you aware that lightning is higher
in voltage than 50KV?.

Those figures show that wood exposed to 80% humidity at 22C for a period
of 72 hours is more conductive than the same wood after only 24 hours.

The wood is absorbing moisture so it conducts better - the fibreglass does
also but not to the same extent.

The conclusion is that the water in the wood is doing the conducting.

Now, whose argument does that support, if anyones ?

All it shows is that Rod is wrong, again.

 

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:12:20 GMT, benmor@dodo.com.au (ben) wrote:

FS tow way radio motorola GP300 $150 each ono

Did you mean tow away or were they used in tow trucks?

Sydney
Ben

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

 

[Patrick Turner]

Mark Harriss wrote:

From what I can see Rod, these clowns have the same grip on
reality as a UN weapons inspector, you can post data showing
dry wood current flow figures and still they want to argue
their way out.

Insulation is relative, which was the point I made, but they
still want to argue about voltage levels, moisture contents
and change the rules or shift the goalpost.

DRY, WET OR DIPPED IN SOY SAUCE, WOOD IS A CONDUCTOR TO
LIGHTNING LEVEL VOLTAGES....GET OVER IT YOU STUPID FLAT EARTH
PIG IGNORANT FUCKS.

OK mark, no need to shout, they wood get the message if they wood read
ordinary lower case typing woodent they surely now?

In a tubed preamp I have used wooden terminal strips made of dry
jarrah, and when prodding between
metal screws in the wood only 10mm apart the resistance was well over
what my DVM could read.

But if the wood ever cop a soaking from being flooded in a
Katrina event, then the amp wood need drying out well before use
although the
polyurethane coating I have painted on wood keep the problems to a
minimum.

Lightning strikes might affect the item slightly; and perhaps zap the
fragile
input fet but only tickle the tubes unless the lightning strike was
directly
to the input terminal, which is unlikely.

Wooden boards for radios were used in the 1920s, and what fine rugged
radios those old bangers were,
since many are still being used in the outback of Oz.

Patrick Turner.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some drunken fuckwit claiming to be
Damien McBain <askme@for.it> wrote just the
puerile shit thats always pouring from the back of it.

 

[Rod Speed]

Mark Harriss <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:


RG8 is fine, I ran quite a bit more than 50KV thru that fine.





I bought about 20 metres of RG8 on a cable drum from the
recycle shop for $5....then gave it to a mate for free,
it amazing what eventually would come in handy.

Was the braid earthed at that voltage?

Better to get rid of the jacket and the braid at the higher voltages.

 

[Gazzus_Blokius]

"Jasen Betts" <jasen@free.net.nospam.nz> wrote in message
news:1216.43883e37.15dce@clunker.homenet...

On 2005-11-25, Gazzus_Blokius <here@there.everywhere> wrote:
when you start a conversation do you have to go over everything that was
said previously to be able to follow the direction of the conversation,

no. that's whay you edit out the unneccessary bits instseatd of posting
the
whole message.


Bye.
Jasen

if only they would, but most people don't even bother

--
Garry

=======================
The Christian right is neither !
=======================

 

[Mark Harriss]

Clockmeister wrote:

Do you really think wooden spark plug leads on a car would conduct?

Yes, if you used lightning for your spark coil.....dickhead.

 

[Mark Harriss]

Clockmeister wrote:

"Mark Harriss" <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:438a3d53$0$23372$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

Patrick Turner wrote:


OK mark, no need to shout, they wood get the message if they wood read
ordinary lower case typing woodent they surely now?

In a tubed preamp I have used wooden terminal strips made of dry
jarrah, and when prodding between
metal screws in the wood only 10mm apart the resistance was well over
what my DVM could read.

But if the wood ever cop a soaking from being flooded in a
Katrina event, then the amp wood need drying out well before use
although the
polyurethane coating I have painted on wood keep the problems to a
minimum.

That approach sounds entirely up to the task, as the moisture would
be kept out by the Estapol. Most phenolic resin product is actually
filled with sawdust and has been since the stuff was invented, so I don't
see why Jarrah can't be used (except for your next 50KV product)
.


Do you really think wooden spark plug leads on a car would conduct?




Those figures for wood translate to 416 MegOhms, you can buy specialty

resistors close to that value.