I don't know if it's just me, but I have been getting almost, and I repeat-almost, as long a burn times from pop-corn dried 2 year old white pine as I do from 2 year dried red oak or beach. I mean almost. If you look at the charts the hardwood shoud give twice the BTU's, but, I guess that's theoretical. After 2 years my pine is featherweight, but gives awesome heat. Maybe the pine can dry better than the hardwood during humid summers? Anyone else notice the pine that some people will even drive to a dump, really isn't so bad?
the hardwood should burn much longer than the pine.
Must be pretty rotten hardwood if the pine burns as long. I just use a forced air furnace here and 3, 8"-10" diameter, 20" slabs will last 6 or 7 hours in 0F weather a bit less in -30F weather though, 5 hours maybe.
Two 4'X8'X16" face cords of FRESH cut maple/ironwood/beech last me about two weeks. The same amount of white/red/jack pine, aspen mix is gone four or five days sooner. The pine aspen mix is not well seasoned but far from green. I kinda like it 8) Lots better than straight up green basswood ;) ;D
I'd freeze to death or keep warm cutting wood. :D
The neighbors have already burned 20 cords of wood, I saw them a week ago hauling in more green for the OWB. :D Insane. And that's all bought wood, haven't even started the 2 green houses yet. More energy wasted making smoke than heat.
Pine would be the most commonly burnt firewood here in NZ, because it's the most common tree, the weather is not super cold, and the fireplaces are designed to to burn it properly.
So it's certainly not useless as firewood, and per pound (dry) it probably does give a little more heat. But per cord the longer burning time should put the hardwood significantly ahead. I know from experience that filling a fire with some of the local hardwood like manuka or eucalyptus will really generate some heat, and for much longer, once you get a good fire going anyway.
Ian
frozen cow dung burns better than basswood,if i burn dry pine i need to spend all my time opening the door and throwing more wood in. seasoned hardwoods burns far longer, just my observations.
Not only that, with good hardwood you have coals for several hours beyond the flames. In the shop, I need good hardwood for the boiler barrel to the steamer or it's not hot enough. Per pound dry pine wouldn't have more heat output, other than the fact it has resins to burn hot like oil.
Even with forced draft green basswood rounds are a PITA to keep burning. If they're split in half they're better but need to be put in the fire with bark down or they are still hard to keep going. Mix them with some hardwood and it's a bit better
Quote from: DarkBlack on February 21, 2011, 06:06:27 PM
.......Anyone else notice the pine that some people will even drive to a dump, really isn't so bad?
Bottom line, pound for pound, all woods are pretty much the same heat output. Variables such as pitch, moisture content, etc. can change that somewhat. Higher moisture content of the hardwood you speak of (2 years doesn't mean dry, just seasoned :) ) prolly is the difference you have noted.
Good that you were satisfied burning the pine. :)
Green sugar maple leaves great coals. Too many in fact ;D :) Shaker grates make it better :)
Coals is where the sustained heat is. ;D Should try some dry maple. :D ;)
Beenthere done that no difference ;D
Maybe after you boiled the water off. ;)
After the 1st two draft cycles the steam quits and the exhaust is clear. Waters gone. The worst creosote we ever had in the OB on these farms was from 30 year dry sugar maple that was stacked in the barn. The creosote formed icicle like formations in the stoves. Nothing like that happens with green wood.
I don't have any doubts about your experiences with your setup. But several old farm houses in the family have always burned seasoned wood and it takes a whole lot less when seasoned and burned in our forced air setups and no build up in 40 foot flues that a 3 gallon pale can't carry out once a year. By summers end what little there was is mostly fallen down to the cleanout from the summer humidity. And the green wood burners always had flu fires in similar setups in the neighborhood. But again we have two different setups. But, no matter how long it takes to burn off the water that's still a loss in heat. No idea why you would have build up with dry wood because the fire should be hotter and not smolder like green wood would do. The only time I've seen troubles with creasote , no matter whether seasoned or not, is with outside flues in the cold, not able to keep hot enough to stop condensation. You can also get trouble if your like my mother is, and think they are saving wood and putting in a small load of dry wood that burns quick, but isn't hot enough. That can cause creasote.
In my furnace my wood is dry enough that when placed on minimal coals the fan is already running in under 10 minutes. Already getting the benefits of the heat. This wood burning is a lot like an art form. :D I'm no expert, but I've burned a lot of wood through what I have and have also saved a pile of money in doing what I do.
When I was a kid we cut our wood green for the house in the spring, let it lay over the summer, gathered it up in the fall and filled up the back porch and part of the garage. We burned 15-18 face cords a season depending on the season. Dad cleaned the chimney every two weeks or so usually on a Saturday and took a five gallon bucket of creosote out of the connecting pipe between the furnace and the chimney. Later we cut green wood in the fall and stacked it on the porch and in the garage. Dad took the same amount of creosote out of the chimney every two weeks and burned about the same amount of wood :) By late winter the wood was getting fairly dry ;D ;)
The 30 year old sugar maple produced the only chimney fire I've had in this OWB. I've never seen any other wood create creosote like that stuff did and it did it in two Heatmors and a Heatmaster SS so it wasn't the make of the furnace. It was the wood. My theory is the burn cycle was too short. The wood got too hot too fast and didn't burn off all the gases and other nasty stuff before the draft fan shut down and choked the fire. The gases and nasty stuff then condensed on the sides and top of the firebox.
I could stack wood in the shed to dry like I used to when I had the indoor stove but the time I'd spend unloading and stacking about equal the time I spend processing what little extra I might burn because it's green. I'd rather back the truck in and dump a couple cords and burn it right out of that pile than stack it and then take it back out of the stack to burn it ;D :)
I'd agree with swamp on hardwood leaving a good coal bed but the problem i have while burning (oak)in my outdoor boiler is i need flames to heat the firebox not coals oak works fine inside in the fireplace not outside in the boiler give me dead elm maple dry or green as long as there is flame i have good heat (and sell the oak )
That sure is a lot of creasote Corley in the pipes, sounds like high moisture wood. ;) I wouldn't have a cool whip tub full in 8 weeks from 8' of 8" pipe. I brush my pipes into the flu every month. The flu only gets once a year brushing. I agree that your less seasoned wood dries especially if stacked by the heat source like in the basement. Mine is so dry (wish I had a weight scale) it practically pulls apart from checking. It has only been seasoned about 10 months before burning, but the dry basement heat dries it even further. My shop is small, I only burn 1.5 cords all winter in there and the house I burn 7 to 7.5 cords and I have an old farm house. It's not air tight like smaller new homes. I like to open windows 1) to change the air, 2) to cool off. :D But, when I see a house using green wood on an OWB and burning 30 odd cord and digging it out of the snow, not for me I would be ahead burning oil and selling all the firewood I could cut to the neighbors. ;) There has never been a flu fire in this place. The shop stove pipes have next to nothing in the pipes and maybe a cool whip tub of brushed off creasote after 5 months of burning. I have good draft in both flues.
Three days is all the time I have invested in stacking firewood for winter, for 7 months of minimum effort to feed the furnace for maximum comfort. ;D
DarkBlack,do you have a OWB,EClassic? I don't see that much differant with Heatmor either. I'm kinda doing the same thing too.But my pine has been standing dead for years.
No way to compare a normal wood stove with a OWB with blowers that drive oxygen into the fire box.I have burned dead wood in 3 wood stoves and have talked to others that have done it.No way to control the burn time.A OWB will smother the fire out.I thought the fire went out a few times when I first got it.I had to re-learn how to burn wood with a OWB.I burn dead ceder in mine OWB.The ones you see in the woods,hung up in another tree with no limbs on it.Works out very well in burn time,considering what I'm burning.The reason most people take white pine to the dump is some feel it will not burn good,even dry.Most won't bother filling it 6-8 times day.It is a bother to burn.When the wood is gone,so is the heat.No coals from white pine.I've filled a wood stove with pine that many times in a day,just to get rid of it.It's a bother.I just gave up on doing that.That's one reason why I bought a OWB.I see alot of wood wasted in people yards and beside the roads when the right of ways are cut.
I've never had any creosote problems and never cleaned the chimney in my OWB.I have a 3-3 foot extensions on my OWB too.Would look like a roman candle if I did have a chimney fire.
Quote from: SwampDonkey on February 22, 2011, 06:19:13 AM
Three days is all the time I have invested in stacking firewood for winter
That's too many :)
Not when I haven't got to haul it in the winter and wade,shovel snow to get at wet wood. That's the time waster. I have neighbors as testament to that approach. And mine's in a warm basement so I don't have to venture out in wind and blowing snow. When I go out it wants to be on the way to the shop or some form of recreation. :D :D
Pine and Fir is the main choice here in the mountains of Colorado and is what I clear on our property. I burn the softwoods about 98 percent of the time. I heat 4,300 square feet with about 8 cords of softwood per year, so it works. When I do occasionally get a load of hardwood it does last longer, about 50% longer, which is what the BTU tables show.
So, it's not overrated if one is thinking it is 50% better - right? But, if one is thinking pine isn't worth anything and hardwood is twice or more better - then IMO it is being overrated. I still wish burning hardwood was an economic option for me, but I love the Colorado mountains and softwood is readily available.
From the Charts we have these numbers:
Cord of Pine, Ponderosa 2,380lb 15.2 mbtu
Cord of Oak, Red 3,757lb 24.0 mbtu
Oak has 58% more BTU's per cord
When it comes time for firewood I aint prejudice at all. I do like to cut as much hardwood as possible , but if a dead softwood comes up its going into the pile, no way will I waste any wood. It don't last as long but I don't care, there is heat out of it and it aint going to rot in the forest.
I've always heard you should never burn softwoods in a stove, because the unburnt resins can and will form lots of creosote.
With the efficiency of the new type stoves that theory does not hold up any more, this aint science its my opinion ;) :D
There is some "material" better left to feed the worms and amphibians. When you go into hardwood stands here, about any old rotten log you roll has a salamander making his home. He might even be in the humus under it. ;D
I don't care what stove your using it doesn't change chemistry of fire, need fuel, heat and oxygen. You can manipulate any of the three. Take away one of them and your gonna be cold. ;D
I did not mention picking up rotten wood , I will though pick up a dead softwood that is still sound. ::) ;)
The stove I have now and the old box stove we had when I was a kid sure as hell dont compare :D
I know you wouldn't pick up rotten wood Marcel. But some will haul in half dead beech that is all punky. It might have been alive when cut, but it is junk as far as heating material. I know a 50 acre rectangular tract that is all this kind of material. It's been for sale, but no one will touch it unless they want the land to clear for field. I had 3 loggers ask me to look at it. It was high graded for the better material 20 years ago and they left the junk beech. This stuff is pretty bad, not solid and usually just a handful of live limbs. Those things will cling to life a long time.
I have some od those here ::) I leave them for the woodpeckers and the bears . They need love too !
We have no soft wood in this part of Ohio save a few yard trees .My only experiance with soft wood was in the mountains of Colorado deer hunting .
In the area around Vail you basically had two choices ,aspen or dead spruce .Both put off heat of course but the spruce would creosote the dickens out of the stove and pipe .The aspen did not .You had to burn a lot of either one though because they are not dense like our local oaks, hickories ,maple etc .
It gets a tad chilly in those mountains around the end of Oct so it was appriciated no matter what it was .
Quote from: tyb525 on February 23, 2011, 06:32:30 PM
I've always heard you should never burn softwoods in a stove, because the unburnt resins can and will form lots of creosote.
"never" isn't a good word to use as it just makes the statement false. ;) ;)
We don't have an OWB, but an older LOPI woodstove. Out on the left coast mostly burn Doug fir, it has about the same btu as oak, but like Swamp says, the coals are not as long lasting, so the heat goes away quicker. Now if I had a whack of pacific Madrone, that would be the wood of choice, long burn good heat and very little ash. I do have some now and again, but not enough of it. Mostly have red alder and bigleaf maple for hardwood on my place, but way more doug fir than the hardwoods. Kind of one of dem "burn what you brung" kind of deals.
Quote from: isawlogs on February 23, 2011, 06:55:08 PM
The stove I have now and the old box stove we had when I was a kid sure as hell dont compare :D
What also don't compare in this whole "assessment" is the fact that when a lot of us 40 plus year olds where kids the houses we lived in had little or next to nothing for insulation or zip. In the late 70's and especially around OPEC crisis the governments pushed the population to insulate their houses and save on fuel consumption with upgrade programs. Insulating a house makes a huge difference in your fuel consumption. I've got just a basic stove in the shop, no where near air tight, old as anyone's grandfather, and I only burn 1.5 cords of wood in the winter in there because the shop is insulated and it don't freeze up for at least 2 days and it would have to be real darn cold before it did so. When I was a kid, the folks never had a fire at night, never, and the house was wrapped in plastic to keep wind out in winter, the house was also banked with plastic and spruce bows to hold the snow, some places used straw.
Lets include all the variables in the "assessment". :D
The newer stoves do burn up the smoke a lot better and do a lot less creosote then the older type stoves, a 90% effecient stove was unheard of 40 years ago. There are stoves now that have very little smoke come out of the stack, there has to be less creosote if ya got no smoke ::) :P
Seasoned wood makes quite a difference in this to. I invite any to inspect my shop pipes and flu and all you will see in them pipes is soot like fine dust in which one or two thumps on the floor will knock it off. Hot fire with seasoned wood, versus smoky less efficient burns with wet wood, flu temperatures, good air from a well set up flu and pipes, and operator make a big difference to. It's not just the stove, although many new stoves get sold on the idea things are better. I'm sure there are more efficient stoves, but many of these improvement in design have problems to. How many gripes have I read about some of these stoves in this forum? ;) I've already posted pictures of my shop flu with a burn, hardly a whiff of smoke. The whole debate is a big marry-go-round with someone needing to justify the expense of these new designs and not owning up to their short falls. :D ;)
Ok, now I choose to bow out of the discussion. ;)
I have a high efficiency fireplace in my house.
It pumps out a lot of heat and burns very little wood compared to what a lot of other folks say. But to be fair, it doesn't get as cold here as it does farther north.
I typically light off a fire every day when it's around freezing or below, and run it hard from 6 or 7 or so to 11 or 12, then if it's really cold get it going again in the morning before going to work. I don't burn continuously in it, and get less than a 1/2 a gallon of creosote out of it when I clean it in the fall.
However, it will only work well with dry wood.
Well weather a modern air tight stove does a better job of "burning the smoke " is debatable . When I was a kid there were no air tight stoves .Round Oaks and Warm Mornings that would burn anything that would fit through the door .
It didn't make much diff what you stuffed in them ,green elm, lump coal,old tires .Fact is I know one old coot that burned rubbber cased battery boxes from a battery salvage place .It was hot but the pipe only lasted about a year or two before the acid ate it up . Ate the bed out his old Chevy truck too from hauling them for that matter . I imagine the EPA would have just been tickled pink had it been in existance then . :D Ha Ha Ha rural Ohio during the early 60's was a hoot .
Quote from: SwampDonkey on February 24, 2011, 07:47:35 AM
Ok, now I choose to bow out of the discussion. ;)
Are you ok ??? You are doing this on your own free will, no gun pointed at you ??? ;D ;) :D :D
that's almost as good as burning tires in an OWB!
The steel belts make tires a real PITA to burn ;) ;D ONE time Dad threw a piece in his Heatmor. The mass of wire made a real mess. He's never done it again.
Over the years people have burned a lot of stuff that's not real environmentally friendly .
My grandfather had a three bay commercial garage in Pittsbugh during the depression ,they burned slack coal with an oil drip or old tires in that thing .Smoked like crazy but kept the garage warm .
Old roofing ,rubber hose ,tires ,battery cases ,even wood sometimes .You name it, they've burned it .Not real smart maybe but people do what they have to do some times .
If I offer to burn tires and battery cases in my OWB will Swamp bow out of all discussions! Where's the dump?
SwampDonkey -
You are a learned guy who likes to research stuff, so I would like to encourage you to read up on the topic of smoke, particulate matter emissions, and new versus old stove types. Gasification stoves are definitely more finicky. They require more maintenance and they run best with well seasoned fuel. But just becasue your pic of a few months ago shows just a "whiff" of smoke out your stack, don't begin to think that the completeness of fuel burning and the amount of particulate debris from your old stove even begins to compare to a well maintained gasifier of the same size. It don't! Look up the NESCAUM testing.
The problem, plain and simple and straight at you, is that many people who have just thrown wood into an old stove for most of their lives, whether it be indoor or outdoor, bring the same mentality and expect the same ease of operation with the newer gasifiers. When those expectations aren't met, the owners get frustrated. That's what we both have read here on the FF. Heck, that's why I came to the FF.
But it's not about justifying a higher price, although I agree that the price is too high, it's about pollution. The data is right there for all to see. Owners of old stoves either don't believe it or deny it. Owners of new stoves use it to justify the increased work it takes to have them run well. But the conclusions from the data can't be ignored. By the way, NESCAUM used polution data from the manufacturers themselves, not their own potetentially "biased" testing, as the baseline for the performace of the older units.
Back to topic, the gasifiers work well with well-seasoned wood, soft or hardwood. I think that the hardwoods last longer, but many here are in geographic areas that realistically can't support hardwood fuel. The guys who are in these areas seem to have it figured out pretty well. I don't think the stove can tell what type of log you just put in, but it sure can tell if it's dry or not.
Tires and Battery boxes - Sheesh! Doctorb
Doc , don't worry 'bout ol'Bill, he will be back ;) How long can he stay away for :D
Quote from: doctorb on February 24, 2011, 09:12:31 AM
Tires and Battery boxes - Sheesh! Doctorb
:D :D Ha ha ,I figured that would shake the bushs .
You gotta admit though it might be better than disposable diapers and old carpeting the cats peed on . Carpet ,cat and all ought to do it . :D
How's this for pollution control with an OWB burning green? :D :D I have a lot more flu than that and I never have that kind of pollution. And that ain't all water, just live downwind of all that smoke and find out. :D They have to stuff it right full of white cedar slabs to get it to burn. ;)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_furnacesmoke-001.jpg)
The trouble with these studies is you can always find a design/stove that sways the outcomes in either direction. It is never bias free, data from the manufacturers is for selling product. Thinking it is unbiased is wishful thinking. ;D
A while back someone floated around in one of these threads a link to one study that showed green wood made less build up when burning oak and maple than seasoned. If you dig around in here, or if someone can remember the link you can read it. A whole whack of variables and methods are never recorded behind many of the tests.
A few here:
1)Stove burn box capacity.
2)Temperature of the flu.
3)Is the fire a hot fire or a smoldering fire
4)Is the flu insulated, outside or inside.
5)Who's to conclude that one flu setup will be the proper one for all stove designs.
6)Could outside temps and humidity have a factor (bitter cold air is more oxygenated than warm air)
7)Wind creates more draw and makes a more rapid burn.
8)Would hope/expect the fuels in the comparison are the same (species, moisture, piece size)
9) flu size for design
In every test, one setup will favor a whole bunch of variables for that design and then expect the other design to perform on the same parameters/tolerances. You just can't conclude with any confidence in favor of any design other than what that particular design is researched and tested for. Basically, the gloves are designed around the shape of the hand, not the other way around. ;D
Use what ever maximizes your comfort zone I guess. I have mine, everyone else has there own. :D
Old Bill signing off.
Quote from: doctorb on February 24, 2011, 09:12:31 AM
The problem, plain and simple and straight at you, is that many people who have just thrown wood into an old stove for most of their lives, whether it be indoor or outdoor, bring the same mentality and expect the same ease of operation with the newer gasifiers. When those expectations aren't met, the owners get frustrated.
There seems to be leaking and other issues with the E classic that don't appear to be connected to a "mentality". Getting frustated with people that keep their old stoves running instead of switching over seems reasonable enough until you consider other ways we pump pollutants into the air.How far do we take that?
My wife witnessed her sister knock on the window of a idling car a couple winters ago and tear a strip off the driver for polluting the air and wasting resources and wondered a few weeks later when that same siter flew fom Vancouver to Toronto and back the next day just to attend a company Christmas party.
What's wrong with expecting ease of operation?
It comes down to cost and convieniance as well as personal preference.
Don't bow out Bill,keep contributing.
Well with an outside burner I suppose you could bale up that zillion acres of slash you do with that weed wacker and stuff it though the door if you wanted to . They burn straw bales in some parts of Scandinavia so slash bales would do the same I would surely think . Cheap is good ,free is better ,heat is heat .
Now just hang around farm auctions until you find about a 1953 model of Allis -Chalmers round baler that spits out little round bales and you've got the hot set up .You'd have to cut the slash a little bit more though .Bush hog outta do it .
Now joking aside ,just why wouldn't that work ? Geeze maybe I shouldn't have put this on the net .I just gave away a million bucks . ;D
While I agree that certain tests favor certain designs, I do not agree that you can use your logic to conclude that gasification and non-gasification can have the same emissions, based on the testing. My point about the manufacturers data agrees with yours. There is bias. Unfortunately for the manufacturers of the older stoves (2004 - 2006), despite any bias in their favor from their own tests on their own units, the amount of pollution was considered unhealthy by the EPA under the Clean Air Act guidelines. So, understand, this data put the older stoves in the best possible light, but was found to be below health standards.
Beenthere and Bioman have discussed the testing mehods more than once here, and I believe they're right in stating that the current EPA testing methods do not necessarily reflect the way we each use our OWB's. Further, I think they are correct that the manufactureres now build their stoves to pass the EPA tests, not to perform better, sort of like your hand and glove analogy. But, make no mistake, non-gasifier stoves pollute more than gasifier stoves when both are used correctly over a period of time.
Wow on that pic! I think I saw you posted it some time ago and was aghast then too. Do you think the cat pee makes more smoke or is it just the rug burning? Should we compare wall-to-wall versus oriental rugs as fuel? I think I'll switch to pine and poplar before I get to that level.
SD - I am not wishing for it, but I'll only believe that you're signed off when I attend your funeral! And even then, I am sure that you'll find some way to let us know what you're thinking. ;D :D ;D
Paul_H: I couldn't agree more. Problems exist with the newer stoves, incluidng the E classic, and improvements are both here and forthcoming. The gasifiers are definitely not advanced to where they need to be yet. They ain't nirvana! If I had heated with an old style stove, and it still worked fine, I would not change over until it failed. That's the situation with several of my friends. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that anybody with a non-gasifier is a bad, selfish polluter, I am saying that the technology is there for us to do better when a change needs to be made. I may sound like I am up on some high horse, but I don't even like to ride much!
:D In thinking this over perhaps the cat pee rug would be better saved as a mosquito repellant .I would however suggest getting up wind from it . On the other hand a good fumigation from same would insure people would give you wide berth in a crowded situation more than likely . Oh my ,ponder that . :D
Which one will likely get you a visit with the EPA?
This? and my previous picture of same setup.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_flu-burn-001.jpg)
or This? Before someone gets smart ellicy that is water vapour from clouds.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_flu-burn-002.jpg)
Your looking at a well maintained flu with seasoned wood past flaming stage and now down to coals running a forced air furnace. And I can tell ya that after an hour to 1.5 hours from initial loading I'm heating from hot coals and flames are minimal. It is now 6 hours after I loaded the furnace with 3 slabs and a couple splints on low coals. My furnace is still running on wood coal heat right now. A day like today in the 20's and I won't have to add wood for 2 or 3 more hours maybe more. The furnace fan will be intermittent as the thermostat calls for heat. Thus saving on power to turn a 1/4 HP motor as well as wood savings. 8)
Total power bill for my house and shop was $99 for January. Now can anyone beat that in cold climate? :D Why the heck would I want to add on extra cost to keep my butt warm?
Now I am not claiming in any of this anywhere that you can't increase burn efficiency. And that ain't just tied to design. I am talking about fuel characteristics and the way your setup to burn it and the resulting condition of pipes and flu.
I know how some of these topics like to spin and twist sometimes. :D
Anyone want a slice of nice homemade multigrain bread that'll melt in your mouth? On second thoughts, get your own. ;D
We kind of like your butt all fired up! Now, where do I get that slice of bread? 8) Doctorb
Well no actually I can't top 99 bucks a month although I'd certainly like to .However the geo thermal hasn't kicked in once since I lit the fire in the wood stove about the last week of Dec either .Had it not been for an ongoing building project that would have been the middle of November .
It certainly has lot to do with how you fire a stove/furnace as to how much it creosotes I'll certainly say that . I guess some people know how to fire them and some don't but I've never had a problem with creosote . I've also been around wood heat since I was little boy too .
Now to be quite truthfull though I've never burned a cat pee rug in the stove .I have however in my burn pile . Reminents of a renter who snuck a couple of cats into a unit but failed to let me know then skeedadled before I found out .That was 1300 bucks down the drain . >:( I could have strangled her and the cats but I couldn't find her .If I recall though it pretty much get rid of the mosquitos for a few weeks .Not a total lose . :D
Quote from: beenthere on February 23, 2011, 08:48:30 PM
Quote from: tyb525 on February 23, 2011, 06:32:30 PM
I've always heard you should never burn softwoods in a stove, because the unburnt resins can and will form lots of creosote.
"never" isn't a good word to use as it just makes the statement false. ;) ;)
Sorry I guess I'm a bit biased ;) all we have to burn around here is hardwoods, the only softwood you see is ewp planted as windbreaks, or lumber bought at the big box.
Don't knock it,until you have tried it. ;) I use to burn wood inside my house.I hope I never have to do it again.I can take pictures of my stack that look just like yours swampdonkey too.That year that I burned green white pine looked like the second picture you posted.Just wanted to see if it would do it.I'm heating a bigger area than what I was.He may have a homemade OWB too.Don't be like my FIL.He seen one "somewheres" and KNOWS they all smoke. He told me more than once that I can not burn limbs in my OWB for hot water.Probaly he thinks I haul all the good hard wood out and bring in the limbs and than when he leaves,I haul the limbs out and bring the hardwood back.I can talk until I'm blue in the face to him.He knows and that's it.
They've got 4 they brought along with them from a former location and look new. I know they were not homemade. I think it's possible they were an auction purchase. They also came along with maple syrup production equipment. The new farm has maple, but mostly about as big as your arm or smaller. I thinned some of it three years ago with brush saws. The back farm was harvested over the years favorable to beech takeover and that's what they have out there, but pole wood. The last guy that grew up there was steeling wood by darkness and jack light off neighbors or he would have froze to death long ago. :D These guys buy wood off my cousin or it would be pretty grim there by now to. ;)
I've got no idea how someone with empty pockets and 18 years old can buy all 4 along with a new farm that grows 1 acre of carrots, 1 acre of corn, 10 acres of weedy buckwheat, and 60 acres of hay, rents 50 acres for soybeans and with two green houses operating in early spring and . They've got $6000 just into firewood. :D Well I guess that's a whole other story beyond the hardwood fuel topic. ;)
Why would the FIL think you couldn't burn limb wood? I've burnt it for years, smaller than 2" sometimes. My grandfather heated water from the kitchen stove connected to a water tank with kitchen stovewood sized firewood (16" longs not much bigger in width than a baseball bat, maybe up to 4"). I don't burn limbs now very much, because I hate handling the stuff. Well it is out by the yard fire pot. ;D Big slabs cut down on all that handling and feeding. ;)
I could travel for miles around here before I found another OWB. ;D I've seen all kinds of "improvements" that never lasted long enough to recover future savings. :D
Kinda reminded me of this:
https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php/topic,30106.msg433959.html#msg433959
I know, ones mind wonders sometimes. :D
I'll take the hit on the topic shift.....won't happen again.
Should I also mention that a chronically beer soaked rug has potential for fuel as well. I understand that the bar may have been set by the cat pee rugs, but I don't like cats as much as I like dogs, and I like beer just fine.
If every time a topic shifts on here someone would take a hit .. sheesh we would all need a doc . ::)
Now I like cats and dogs but I really really like beer, so much so that I don't have any anymore ;)
This thread is slipping badly. Three pages and no food yet. :D
I thought beer counted as food,
I burn mostly spruce because that is what I have, I can cut a 60 year old spruce that is 8" dia. and a 60 year old spruce that is 20" dia, way more heat in the 8" piece split to the same size than the 20" so I don't think a person can compare just hardwood to softwood I can get quite a difference from one spruce tree to the next. My indoor boiler is a Tarm with a inside ss insulated chimney, I find that most of the creosote stays on the boiler walls, only get a bit of build up at the very top of the chimney in close to 10 years I haven't had to clean the chimney yet what little powder that sticks to the chimney falls off on its own, might get a gallon of that per season. I will cut branches and burn them in the stove if I am blocking up the tree close to were it fell, I find they are handy to have for getting things going when the fire almost burned out.
Use to get power bill of $35 to $45 per month before I got tired of making a fire every morning for hot water, then i put in a electric water heater and it went to around $85 /month.
We broke bread on the previous page. ;D
I did not really mean limb wood.Wrong word on my part.That's high quality wood for my OWB according to one of my friends. ;D I really meant branches,for no better wood.Still had the needles hanging on to the branches.Has to do with that grown up pasture I'm clearing.I pick up all the branches that break off,mostly soft wood,than run a cheap lawn mower over anything I think it will chew up.Sometimes I think wrong too. :o I was taking the branches,brush to the burn pile one day and thought I would try a load in the OWB.Have not put much in the brush pile in the summer months since than.Have to remember mine will take a 54 inch stick.Makes it much easier to burn all the junk I pick up.Some don't even need to be sawed.
Quote from: thecfarm on February 25, 2011, 07:51:25 AM
I was taking the branches,brush to the burn pile one day and thought I would try a load in the OWB.
And this is when your FIL just happen to be there and made is mind up about what you burn all the time in da OWB I know people like that too :-\
Quote from: SwampDonkey on February 24, 2011, 12:07:06 PM
Which one will likely get you a visit with the EPA?
This? and my previous picture of same setup.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_flu-burn-001.jpg)
or This? Before someone gets smart ellicy that is water vapour from clouds.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_flu-burn-002.jpg)
Your looking at a well maintained flu with seasoned wood past flaming stage and now down to coals running a forced air furnace. And I can tell ya that after an hour to 1.5 hours from initial loading I'm heating from hot coals and flames are minimal. It is now 6 hours after I loaded the furnace with 3 slabs and a couple splints on low coals. My furnace is still running on wood coal heat right now. A day like today in the 20's and I won't have to add wood for 2 or 3 more hours maybe more. The furnace fan will be intermittent as the thermostat calls for heat. Thus saving on power to turn a 1/4 HP motor as well as wood savings. 8)
Total power bill for my house and shop was $99 for January. Now can anyone beat that in cold climate? :D Why the heck would I want to add on extra cost to keep my butt warm?
Now I am not claiming in any of this anywhere that you can't increase burn efficiency. And that ain't just tied to design. I am talking about fuel characteristics and the way your setup to burn it and the resulting condition of pipes and flu.
I know how some of these topics like to spin and twist sometimes. :D
Anyone want a slice of nice homemade multigrain bread that'll melt in your mouth? On second thoughts, get your own. ;D
Swamp
One thing I did not see mentioned, and it may have been, is that you are not getting any heat losses from transport, and your masonary chimney is a heat source all the way through the middle of the house.
My ex wifes house has a similar setup, as will my new house. I built a concrete three sided box under the fireplace, and the wood stove is in that box, the flue heating the real fireplace as the gasses run to the peak of the roof. The chimney stays warmer as it is in the heated space, and so the cresote will make it out of the chimney as a gas, instead of condensing on the flue. I wrapped the portion of the chimney in the attic with two inch foam, and put 1" thermax between the brick and the masonary in the portion that was above the roofline and under the cap. Never had a problem with cresote, cleaned the chimney once a year from the basement. I had a concrete wood room in the basement, floors walls, and ceiling that could be loaded from the outside. Used a good steel door, dropped in a couple of bug bombs after the wood was loaded, and it was three steps from the wood room to the stove.
After much reading on alternatives, I decided to do the same thing in my new house because the initial cost is less, the stove will last longer than an OWB, it burns a lot less wood, and I don't have to go outside if I don't want to.
Quote from: Dean186 on February 22, 2011, 11:30:15 AM
Pine and Fir is the main choice here in the mountains of Colorado and is what I clear on our property. I burn the softwoods about 98 percent of the time. I heat 4,300 square feet with about 8 cords of softwood per year, so it works. When I do occasionally get a load of hardwood it does last longer, about 50% longer, which is what the BTU tables show.
So, it's not overrated if one is thinking it is 50% better - right? But, if one is thinking pine isn't worth anything and hardwood is twice or more better - then IMO it is being overrated. I still wish burning hardwood was an economic option for me, but I love the Colorado mountains and softwood is readily available.
From the Charts we have these numbers:
Cord of Pine, Ponderosa 2,380lb 15.2 mbtu
Cord of Oak, Red 3,757lb 24.0 mbtu
Oak has 58% more BTU's per cord
In this case, if you define work as moving a certian amount of weight a certian distance, the oak and the pine give exactly the same reward for your labors, not counting the extra work involved with more volume and twice the amount of cuts.
Those outside burners use a lot of fuel . Anything from dry oak to cat pee carpeting will work .Cresote soaked rail road ties maybe .
It's probabley not a grand plan though to burn garbage stuff like carpeting and old anti freeze jugs though .Those that are "green " minded have fits over that . :D
However after saying that it's great sport to entice them into lively discussion over the subject . The internet as well as a source of great information also serves as great entertainment . 8) P T Barnum would be proud .
My brother had to smell old baby diapers from the neighbors burn barrel and called Environment. You would to, I can guarantee it. :-X >:(
Hah,says you .I live right amongst a bunch of Mennonite hog farmers .Try that some time on a windy spring day .
Now that I think about it ,do you suppose a person could burn dried out swine patties like they burnt buffalo chips on the prarie .That would be aromatic to say the least .
I think you better talk to the Bioman with his Bio-Burner. He uses a lot of "interesting stuff" for his fuel.
Quote from: Al_Smith on February 25, 2011, 12:52:56 PM
Hah,says you .I live right amongst a bunch of Mennonite hog farmers .Try that some time on a windy spring day .
Don't think for one second we are immune from that crowd up here. But hog farming is just that, farming. It's not burning diapers and garbage. :D :D :D
Hog smell eh, what about spreading it next to the house over 100 acres? :D
The fields around my house are like 200 plus acres and larger .Here I sit in a pristene oak woods which is surounded by soy beans , corn and hogs .The saving grace is all the hog do do is knifed in the ground so it's only bad for about a week a year or so .
You'd have to burn a lot of chitty diapers to stink things up that bad .If they mixed them with cat pee carpet I doubt you could tell the difference .
You know.sometimes it's hard to be too serious for some reason or another . :D
Ha Ha ha ,I gotta quit for a little bit lest I get issued a gag order . 8)
Well there is quite a difference in farm odors and burnt plastic smoke mixed in along with it. The 100 acres is just one farm field around the house. If you want to compare field acres versus woods at my house, well then here you go. Certainly not little play farm patches. :D :D Thankfully for farmers someone can't move in and have the farmers ousted because they don't like pig poop smell. Too bad. ;)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_farms.jpg)
That's what 1500 acres looks like around the house, 1200 acres cultivated fields. The label is on my house lot. That's the 100 acres around it. The double line to the south is 1100 meters long to the international border to the west (left). ;D Farmers were deeded 100 acres at a time in these parts and then over the years got amalgamated. It's not done in sections like the west. Potatoes is king up here. ;)
I thought McCains were king up there,or was it Irvings?
Both :D And both process potatoes. :D
I was trying to razz you :D
Well now a few poopy diapers is one thing but a pick up truck full is another .Just how many of same can one baby produce in a day anyway ?
Much ado over nothing especially in open country where the hoot owls romance the chickens . Now tell me this though .Out of curiosity do soiled diapers act as a better bug deterent than soiled carpet .Inquistive minds want to know .
If they do work I'll burn a pick up full in my slash pile just to rid the mosquitos --and also give the hog farmers a taste of their own medicine .What's good for the goose is good for the gander . The problem is finding a baby that has such active bowls .Graigs list might be a plan . :D
Quote from: Paul_H on February 25, 2011, 05:12:29 PM
I was trying to razz you :D
I know, and you read too many of my entertaining posts. :D
Quote from: Al_Smith on February 25, 2011, 05:39:39 PM
Well now a few poopy diapers is one thing but a pick up truck full is another .Just how many of same can one baby produce in a day anyway ?
Well, let me tell ya. ;D
I had a cousin who lived in a small house down the road. Actually I lived there one winter, but onward with the tale. He wasn't much for going to the dump and if I recall he had a bad back in those days and laid up. Wasn't from work I don't think, just hard playing. I don't remember his father or dad getting much work out of the whole tribe of'm. But on that house was a glassed in porch out front and every morsel of garbage landed out there until you could barely open the door into the porch and on into the house. But winter wasn't to bad, until spring came and stuff got good and ripe. The public dump was only 4 miles away and no fees. But then the garbage started flooding into the little shed next door. Well, the cup runneth over again and then they just started tossing out the back stoop down toward the little brook. I could just sware. >:( Soon they had to move on because of the swaller. Talk about 3rd world.
Well see if they would have just had an outside boiler all that stuff could have been turned into something usefull . ---and with that I can almost feel the cringes of the "green " crowd . :D
Must be slow in the chainsaw forum. :D :D ;D
Which chainsaw forum,this one ? Actually about normal .
I just figured that being the nice guy I am you folks who are more inclined to discuss alternate methods of doing things would like some lively conversation to spice things up a tad bit .
Now think about it ,there's just only so much you can discuss about the virtues of a brush saw .Recycling of dirty diapers opens a whole new world of enlightenment .
Enough frivality for the moment .I know people with outside burners who knock apart wooden pallets .Stuff them in nails and all .Free btus are good btus .What makes a difference if you burn them or toss them in a landfill other than the fact it would take them a zillion years to break down underground .
The things will burn anything .I think if you had a good bed of coals the things could run on saw dust if you didn't shovel in too much at a time .If my stove will burn it these high priced gadgets certainly should be able to .
It's one thing to own a brush saw, and another to know how to use it to make money. :D :D
I don't mind tormenting you Al. ;D
As far as the pallets, I know a fellow that will salvage them pallets and replace the boards and get $3-4 each cash. He's thinks he's doing OK, maybe, but it's a long way to the first $M. :D
Last spring, he took some pallet wood about 2 months from being rotten and made a yard fence around his property in town. Cut all the yard trees down in the process. The town said he couldn't, but did it just for spite and they never bothered him again. He's just that type, he'll go in the opposite direction. :D
They actually disassemble heavy hardwood pallets with a special abrasive saw and reuse the wood believe it or not .
I don't do it but I know people who actually get the discarded light weights and they do burn them .I use them to stack my firewood on .You'd be surprised how long a pine pallet will last in the open .An oak one for years .
Eventually they end up on my slash pile with or without the cat scented carpets .Come to think of it I did have a cat in that pile once .He had expired prior not of my doing either . Seems he tried to race a car on a country road, lost .Sail cat so to speak, like a frisbee . I gave him a Viking funeral .
Quote from: SwampDonkey on February 25, 2011, 07:37:56 PM
It's one thing to own a brush saw, and another to know how to use it to make money. :D :D
I don't mind tormenting you Al. ;D
As far as the pallets, I know a fellow that will salvage them pallets and replace the boards and get $3-4 each cash. He's thinks he's doing OK, maybe, but it's a long way to the first $M. :D
Last spring, he took some pallet wood about 2 months from being rotten and made a yard fence around his property in town. Cut all the yard trees down in the process. The town said he couldn't, but did it just for spite and they never bothered him again. He's just that type, he'll go in the opposite direction. :D
I worked on a house in the greater Detroit area a few years ago that was being built by a pallet builder/remanufacurer. The total bid on the house was 17 million, and that was about 15 years ago when 17 million meant something. ;)
Quote from: DarkBlack on February 21, 2011, 06:06:27 PM
I don't know if it's just me, but I have been getting almost, and I repeat-almost, as long a burn times from pop-corn dried 2 year old white pine as I do from 2 year dried red oak or beach. I mean almost. If you look at the charts the hardwood shoud give twice the BTU's, but, I guess that's theoretical. After 2 years my pine is featherweight, but gives awesome heat. Maybe the pine can dry better than the hardwood during humid summers? Anyone else notice the pine that some people will even drive to a dump, really isn't so bad?
No, Hardwood is not over rated but. . . I have a Classic 5036 OSB and i like burning pine.I get to burn everything that gets in my way when cutting, It smells nice when im out working, its a lot lighter to handle than hardwood, Get the same burn time from each load but. . .when the pine is gone, its gone and no coals left just dust! so you really need to watch when you need to load the next burn. . .John
I don't run a boiler, just a wood stove, but it's hard for me to see how you guys are getting almost the same heat & burn times from Pine as from Hardwood. The BTUs per cord in a high-end hardwood are almost double that of pine. I've found that pine dries a lot quicker for me, though... are you burning your hardwoods still green or only partially seasoned? You can lose up to 40% of the BTUs in hardwood by burning it green (heating up, and especially vaporizing all that water has a cost).
John Mc
You gotta burn what you have on hand .I mean in western Ohio I certainly can't burn Douglas fir any more than someone in Salem Oregon could burn shag bark hickory .
Then again you never know .Some adventuresome squirrel may have vacationed in Oregon from Ohio and buried a nut that grew .Stranger things have happened .
I agree, you burn what's available. I do sometimes burn pine, cedar, and other softwoods. I just resign myself to getting about half the BTUs out of them as when I'm burning properly seasoned Oak, Beech, etc.
Fortunately for me, hardwood is plentiful on my land. My sister heats almost exclusively with Red Pine, since that's the predominant species on the island on which she lives in New Hampshire.
John Mc
John Mc-
Hailing from Vermont, is most of what you burn maple? Have you been able to compare it to "harder" hardwoods like oak or cherry, and can you tell the difference when burning them?
Sugar maple is slightly denser (@ 12% MC) than red oak and a lot more dense than cherry. Almost 10lbs/ft3 heavier at 12 % MC. Yellow birch and American beech are the same as sugar maple, all within a lb or two and sp gravity 0.63 @12%, compared to cherry 0.5.
Talk about burning things in a stove. I knew a man that ran a shop when I was a boy that use to burn all his oil from when he change oil in cars. The way he did it was he started a fire in a 55 gal barrel stove that he had made. He would put 4 or 5 inches of sand in the botton and in the middle of the stove he put a cinder block. He would start a little wood fire to burning then start the oil dripping on the cinder block. When he burn up or the block broke up he just put in a new one.
Quote from: doctorb on March 29, 2011, 03:46:47 PM
John Mc-
Hailing from Vermont, is most of what you burn maple? Have you been able to compare it to "harder" hardwoods like oak or cherry, and can you tell the difference when burning them?
Most of what I'm burning lately is Beech and Red (soft) Maple... mainly because the stand I'm getting my firewood from for the last few years has a lot of that in it. Cherry is not all that hard - more of a "second tier" wood as far as firewood goes.
The top-tier hardwoods for firewood as far as BTUs per cord are concerned are White & Red Oak, Sugar Maple (aka "Hard Maple), various Hickories, Beech, Apple, Hophornbeam (aka "Hardhack"), Black Birch. The next tier down has Elms, Ashes, Cherry, Red Maple (aka "soft Maple), and the other Birches.
There are other considerations besides just BTU content: White Ash has among the lowest moisture content when green, so is popular if someone is trying to get their firewood in at the last minute. It also just about splits itself if you stare at it too hard, so it's very popular if you are hand splitting. American Elm is a pain in the neck to split by hand, and not all that fun when using a hydraulic splitter either (you don't see that stuff "popping apart" - you have to run the ram all the way through each piece, and even then might need a bit of extra effort to break it apart). Beech is popular for firewood because of it's high BTU content low commercial value and the fact that it dries more quickly than Oak or Red Maple. Red Maple has lower commercial value, and little wildlife value as compared to some other species, so is sometimes singled out for firewood by someone wanting to thin the lot to favor other species. Oak makes great firewood, but can take a long time to dry (not the stuff you want to cut if you are getting your firewood in at the last minute).
Yellow birch would rank the same as black birch. There is a world of difference in heat, coals and weight when comparing yellow birch to white birch. I would put the hickories ahead of the oaks and red oak after sugar maple and Beech comes before hard maple. I tried apple one fall and it wasn't very good, I was glad to get that out of the way of my hard maple so I could be warm. :D That apple was seasoned for several months. The wood wasn't even heavy like sugar maple. Burned most of it in several bonfires when I cleared off an acres of old trees.
I have no idea about Nebraska beech trees but around here a dry one is just about like cutting concrete with a chainsaw .It's every bit as hard as dried shag barg hickory if not harder . I almost think the danged stuff must have sucked the limestone out of the ground as they grow .
John,I think most of us are talking about burning wood in a OWB not a regular wood stove. Can not compare the two as far as burning dead wood and good hardwood.I have burned dead cedar and pine in my OWB all winter. Most OWB on this site will smother the fire out when the water gets at a certain temp.Open the door on mine OWB and you will see no hot coals for a minute.You would think the fire is just about out.Let some oxygen get to those coals and it is going in no time.I have a regular wood stove in the basement before I got the OWB.That thing would gobble up the dead wood and no way to control the fire.Did not do that long,that's one reason for the OWB,get rid of some of the dead wood I have.
Quote from: SwampDonkey on March 30, 2011, 07:07:41 AM
Yellow birch would rank the same as black birch. There is a world of difference in heat, coals and weight when comparing yellow birch to white birch. I would put the hickories ahead of the oaks and red oak after sugar maple and Beech comes before hard maple. I tried apple one fall and it wasn't very good, I was glad to get that out of the way of my hard maple so I could be warm. :D That apple was seasoned for several months. The wood wasn't even heavy like sugar maple. Burned most of it in several bonfires when I cleared off an acres of old trees.
I agree for the most part. I wasn't trying to rank them in order within the tiers, just divide the "high-end" hardwoods from the next level down. I was going from memory and wrote them down as I thought of them. Left a few out (like yellow birch. We have some around here, just not much in areas where I've been cutting for firewood)
Apple can be tough to get seasoned right, and hard to get started burning even when seasoned. But if you do get it properly dried (and not starting to rot), there are a LOT of BTUs there, and it has excellent coaling. As far as BTUs go, I think it ranks right up there with the Oaks and Beech - once you get it burning.
Some links with tables of BTUs by species:
From Woodheat.org: www.woodheat.org/firewood.html (http://www.woodheat.org/firewood.html) also a great all-around site for people trying to learn more about burning wood efficiently. Check out some of the links on the sidebar on the left of the page as well.
From a wood stove manufacturer: www.mb-soft.com/juca/print/firewood.html (http://www.mb-soft.com/juca/print/firewood.html) This is an interesting one. It includes information on other properties besides BTU content. It's incomplete (how can you leave off the BTU data for Hard Maple?) and the data may be a bit inconsistent, since it was put together from multiple sources, but it's still an interesting table. One of the more unique things about this site pops up if you scroll down the page a bit: a ranking of moisture content in green wood - interesting if you're in a jam and don't have enough seasoned wood (as expected, Ash tops the list - I assume they are referring to white ash here)
Oh well with an outside burner it doesn't seem to make much difference really .The things will make heat out of anything you can stuff through the door . I suppose the main difference would be how often you needed to load it .
They've about covered all basses from shag bark hickory to soiled Pampers,cat peed carpet or even the offending cat perhaps .
Quote from: thecfarm on March 30, 2011, 08:43:22 AM
John,I think most of us are talking about burning wood in a OWB not a regular wood stove. Can not compare the two as far as burning dead wood and good hardwood.I have burned dead cedar and pine in my OWB all winter. Most OWB on this site will smother the fire out when the water gets at a certain temp.Open the door on mine OWB and you will see no hot coals for a minute.You would think the fire is just about out.Let some oxygen get to those coals and it is going in no time.I have a regular wood stove in the basement before I got the OWB.That thing would gobble up the dead wood and no way to control the fire.Did not do that long,that's one reason for the OWB,get rid of some of the dead wood I have.
I recognized that in my first post on this thread (wood stove vs OWB). However, it still does not make sense to me that people are getting a similar amount of heat from a load of softwood as they do for hardwood.
Across almost all species, BTUs are almost exactly proportional to dry weight of the wood. Some pines do get
slight kick per pound due to the pitch in them, but not nearly enough to make up for the fact that their density is about half of what the high-end hardwoods are. Something just doesn't seem right if you are not seeing a large difference in burning the two.
I heat my house primarily with a recent generation woodstove (with a propane boiler backup). It's an open floor plan, so I can heat the whole 2 stories (not the basement) with my 55,000 BTU wood stove (though if it's windy and -20 F, I may need help from the boiler). I do burn dead wood. I don't burn rotten wood... wood loses BTUs so quickly once it starts to rot, it's just not worth the effort to me to cut it up and bring it in.
John Mc
John Mc
I found that table info interesting too. If others are interested....it's a small table after you scroll down through the first, larger one. I did not know that black locust had such a low "green" water content. Yet the wood is so dense and heavy, I wonder how long it takes to season black locust, even if you are starting at a relatively low moisture content figure. I took down some locusts, some live, some dead, last fall. I wasn't planning on burning it until November 2012, but maybe I don't have to wait that long.
There's only one problem with ash for firewood. Since the beetle took over, firewood guys can't transport it legally, not only between states, but between counties (MD and PA, I think. Maybe others). So you need to find it on your own property around here, or you'll not be burning much ash.
Quote from: John Mc on March 30, 2011, 09:22:18 AM
.......I recognized that in my first post on this thread (wood stove vs OWB). However, it still does not make sense to me that people are getting a similar amount of heat from a load of softwood as they do for hardwood.
.......
It is a perception that some have, and I'd offer a suggestion of not trying to make sense out of it. :)
Nor try to change that perception with some printed material, as there are too many variables that enter into the heat BTU tables vs. the wood that is put into the OWB's.
Not worth the worry, IMO. :)
Beenthere -
Part of my interest was due to the fact that I may have a wood boiler of some sort in my futuret ouIfheat it was true that you can get similar heat out of a load of softwood, then my harvesting focus might change. Hardwood firewood goes for more than softwood around here (in fact, no one really buys softwood for firewood at all). If true, and I had a boiler, I'd burn softwood and sell my hardwood.
Doctorb -
I've only burned a tiny bit of Locust in my stove, so I have little idea about how quickly it dries (I'm guessing significantly quicker than Oak, but not as quick as Ash). The green moisture content on that one surprised me as well.
John
I think your resources say how true it is. You go with how you read it. :)
Al, yeah Beech is our densest hardwood up here in New Brunswick (not Nebraska (NE) :D ), it is also the wood of choice along with hard maple and yellow birch when cooking on the old kitchen stove. ;) I also think our diffuse hardwoods (beech, hard maple, yellow birch) are denser than the oaks and ash up here because all hardwood grows real slow here and as some may know that earlywood band is the same in a tree if it grew fast or slow. The more dense wood put on in a ring (latewood and 3 diffuse hardwood mentioned), makes it harder. Down south it will favor the same oak species as there is more latewood in the ring, from faster growth. The oaks seem to have denser latewood then the other three species I mention.
:D Don't ask me how I got Nebraska out on New Brunswick but some how I did ,duh .
I had heard the more northerly sugar maple is harder than our red oak before .Oak actually isn't that hard to cut unless it's in a petrified log and even then because it's oak it never really dries out .
Now beech for some reason can dry completely through even a 30inch log .Then it will dull the most chains you've ever seen in your life with about 1 cut .It will get as dry as white ash and be about 4 times harder .I almost think you could use it in place of plate steel armor .
We do have red oak up here, but it's scarce so no one much "can" burn it. It's kind of a junk tree really in our region. There is the odd fellow using it in his hobby shop for wood working. It's mostly cut for pulpwood in any place I've seen it grow and not managed. I do know a couple woodlot owners that "baby" it along. But, if maple takes over it will kill it out. Someone tried to plant some in a maple ridge leading up to a look out at Ayres Lake. The maples did it in, shaded out.
Sure would DarkBlack.
Wet wood compared to dry wood....big difference in heat. :)
I hear you on getting red oak to dry, DarkBlack. Most of the other hardwoods I burn, I can cut, split and stack in the spring, and have them ready to burn (under 20% moisture content, usually down close to 15%) -- IF I take the time to stack them in single rows out in the sun and wind, then get them under cover in the fall.
With Red Oak, I can never get it ready that fast. Seems like I need at least two summers of drying, and sometimes that's barely ready if conditions weren't very good for drying.
John,when you get an OWB and you start to burn your dead wood,that we make a believer out of you. Worked for me.
thecfarm -
Are you talking dead, or rotten/partially rotten? I already burn wood that was standing dead a year or more before I got to it. I don't bother with the rotten stuff. I'd go to softwoods before I'd mess with that.
I'm talking dead standing trees.Some was being held up by thier limbs.I have burned some rotten wood before that had been on the ground for a while. If it wasn't frozen,I think it would of fell apart. ::) I only did it once.Did not amount to much.It did burn and I did get heat. Not worth it to me. I did not realize it was that rotten of I would of left it in the woods.I got it up by the house where I cut and split all my wood and thought,oh well,it's up here I'll try it.I bought another one up like that too this year.I pushed it into the brush pile this time.Not that it matters,but I burned dead wood all winter.I cut wood all winter long.Some trees were real dry and some not so dry.This is pine,fir,hemlock and cedar.Hemlock is really the best for a lasting fire.
I find these variable experiences interesting. Last year, I got some standing dead oak ( I don't know if it was white or red, but my bet is red ), MC about 25% when split. It sat outside, split, uncovered, for the entire fall and winter. I split a piece of it last week to see how dry it was... MC 22%. I have stacked it in my shed for use this coming winter and I expect it will be fine.
As a new guy at this a couple of years ago, I actually did not believe beenthere's and others opinion about 2 years drying time for oak was true. I just had a gut reaction that they were nuts! :D I agree with them now! I do think I can get away with one full year (spring, summer, and fall) for standing dead oak, but cut live oak is going to take 2 years. I am hopefull that I can get some ash this spring, which seems to start at a lower MC and should be ready by next January.
Along with that standing dead oak, I took down some black locust, some gree, some dead. With its starting MC at 17% (as per table above) I am gong to try and burn some of that during the remainder of this heating season to get a feel for how it combusts. I will measure its MC and let you know.
It will take about 2 years on either red or white oak ,pin for that matter before it's real dry .
I've cut tops that have been on the ground for over twenty years and the water ran out of them .Fact I've cut good lumber out of downed stuff and it was wet even with the sap wood rotted away .
That's just one of the properties of oak .One reason it makes such good barrels and kegs . If it wasn't for white oak, no whiskey kegs ,not good .
"Is hardwood over rated? "
No.
I've attached a PDF with one of the better charts for BTUs/cord for various species of firewood. Two lists, on sorted by BTUs, and one alphabetical. Many of the charts I've seen were compiled from data obtained from various sources. The problem is that those compiling don't always adjust the figures from different sources to make up for different assumptions (e.g. adjusting for different assumed moisture content, or how much actual wood -- as opposed to air space -- there is in a stacked cord).
The folks at www.chimneysweeponline.com (http://www.chimneysweeponline.com) put in the effort to make those adjustments, so they are comparing apples to apples here. This file is posted with their permission, as long as we give them credit (Thanks to Tom Oyen of the Chimney Sweep Online for his quick response, and taking the time to reformat to a PDF file).
John Mc
I don't, I'd drop it to about popple status. :D I could never get any heat off it worth a darn. ;) Good for bon fires is about it. :D
Quote from: DarkBlack on April 01, 2011, 07:49:07 AM
That's a nice chart, but I do question apple having less btu's than red oak.
Why? How do you (DarkBlack) measure BTU output for a wood?
These tables use calculated numbers, since most all wood has about the same BTUs per pound (it's mainly just the densities of the wood that cause the difference).
Here's a link explaining how Chimney Sweep Online got the values in their table:
http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/howoodbtu.htm (http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/howoodbtu.htm)
And if you look at table 11-4 of Textbook of Wood Technology for 12% MC. The very same table used in the Forum Toolbox (we use green figures).
Species Sp. Grav. Weight (lb/ft3)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yellow Birch 0.62 43
Beech 0.64 45
sugar maple 0.63 44
red oak 0.62 43
white oak 0.67 45
black locust 0.69 48
Shagbark 0.72 50
live oak 0.88 62
Osage 0.80 56
I've used quite a bit of apple wood but it's all gone in my smoker. Just about my favorite wood for that.
Quote from: DarkBlack on April 02, 2011, 07:22:23 AM
Other charts I've looked at had apple higher than red oak.
If you look at the link I put up a few posts ago about how Chimney Sweep Online got their numbers, you may see a clue to why many tables do not agree with each other. A lot of these tables are made from data compiled from different sources. Most sources are calculated numbers from the weight of the wood. Some of the sources take the weights at one moisture content, some at another. Some make different assumptions for how much wood is in a cord. If you don't take the time to adjust for these when compiling a master list, the relative BTUs will be off.
The bottom line is it all puts out heat .On an outside burner it just means to have to burn more if the wood is less dense .
Those things will burn any thing you can stuff through the door .Shag bark, swamp willow, old pallets, bark, sawdust ,bowling balls .
Quote from: John Mc on March 30, 2011, 10:15:35 PM
With Red Oak, I can never get it ready that fast. Seems like I need at least two summers of drying, and sometimes that's barely ready if conditions weren't very good for drying.
When the Royal Navy was still building ships out of oak, they normally stored the wood in either wood ponds or under shelter for 5 to 10 years before using it so that it properly seasoned.
For DoctorB, as a wood burning neophyte, if I decided to use wood for heating, I would want it to be as simple as using my natural gas furnace. I load it with wood and not have to worry about any settings, just let the wood burn. If I have to deal with making sure everything was set properly, I would stick with natural gas. The outdoor burners sound much more appealing to me than what appears to be an overly complicated wood gasifier designed to satisfy the EPA. I have a very low opinion of the value of EPA regulations with respect to wood burners, as that assumes that everyone using them will follow all of the rules, which I find very doubtful.
I have found the thread to be very interesting however.
TR51-
Have enjoyed your posts. I, too, question the EPA and the testing / regulations. Two gentlemen of the FF, beenthere and Bioman, know much more about it than I. But I think your statements are correct in that the tests do not necessarily reflect real life use of the device. Too many variables with fuel type and seasoning, heat demand, maintenance of the unit, etc.
I would compare maintenance on my gassifyer to flossing my teeth. I will confess that, as a younger man, I didn't pay much attention to flossing. Took too much time and I wasn't having cavity after cavity when I occcasionally showed up at the dentist. Things changed. I had a total hip replacement 4 years ago and good mouth hygiene is important to prevent total joint infection. So now my teeth and gum daily maintenance is at a very high level, but it has also become entirely routine. I don't think about it at all, it's just a brief part of my day. The same is true for the maintenance on my E-2300.
Realize that the older type stoves, placed in more urban areas, and used innappropriately, caused a huge set back to the OWB world. The EPA got involved and joined with stove manufacturers to make a better product. It may not seem better to you, because it takes more time than you envision spending with it. You need seasoned wood, space to store it, and the daily maintenance takes a few minutes. But with respect to particulate debris pollution, it is a clear winner over the previous technology. In terms of "making sure everything is set properly" on gassifyer OWB's, it's a matter of good fuel with a well maintained stove, and you're good to go. You don't have to figure it out every day, you just do it, like flossing your teeth.
Quote from: doctorb on April 15, 2011, 08:16:46 AM
Realize that the older type stoves, placed in more urban areas, and used innappropriately, caused a huge set back to the OWB world. The EPA got involved and joined with stove manufacturers to make a better product. It may not seem better to you, because it takes more time than you envision spending with it. You need seasoned wood, space to store it, and the daily maintenance takes a few minutes. But with respect to particulate debris pollution, it is a clear winner over the previous technology. In terms of "making sure everything is set properly" on gassifyer OWB's, it's a matter of good fuel with a well maintained stove, and you're good to go. You don't have to figure it out every day, you just do it, like flossing your teeth.
To the list of improvements, I would add that gasifiers burn more efficiently. That was another thing that gave a lot of the older OWBs a bad name. They were often marketed as being highly efficient, but the truth was that many of them were total dogs in that regard.
The fact that many owners took these poorly designed boilers and burned green wood, trash, or whatever they could fit through the door and would catch fire in them sure didn't help either. The fact that they had to burn two or three times as much fuel to get the BTUs needed only added to the problem. If you were a neighbor downwind, you ended up cursing the whole industry (as well as your inconsiderate neighbor). It only takes a few poorly run or poorly designed OWBs to fill a small valley or hollow with smoke and particulates - especially if there is a temperature inversion, trapping that exhaust near the ground. I fly over such areas all the time and thank my luck that my family and I are not living there.
Are they all junk or all run by folks who don't give a rat's rear-end? No, but it only takes a few in a given area to give everyone else a bad impression.
John Mc
If green or partially "seasoned" wood is attempted to be burned, first you have to cook off the water, then you get the benefit of the BTU content of the wood.
Some say this creates more acids too.
Doesn't matter the manufacturer of the furnace, just some are better than others.
My wife and I sit in our hot tub virtually every night Both summer and winter and in the winter i watch my furnace work.
I stoke it in the evening and go inside to take a shower.
When it calls for domestic hot water when we are in the tub it opens the draft and starts to burn, very little smoke and it runs for about 7 t 10 minutes before shutting down.
Is my furnace the most efficient in the world?
I doubt it but, it works for us.
This Winter (an old fashioned one by some standards) cost us more wood than some others but that is life.
The last two seasons we have burned only Ash dried at least two seasons.
Here in NYS the DEC has suggested very restrictive regulations but have relented do far.
Cheers everyone
Pete
Quote from: petefrombearswamp on April 15, 2011, 07:48:46 PM
If green or partially "seasoned" wood is attempted to be burned, first you have to cook off the water, then you get the benefit of the BTU content of the wood.
You can lose more than just the BTUs required to vaporize the water. Vaporizing that water will cool the fire. If it cools too much, you won't burn the gasses, which are a significant portion of the heat value of the wood.
QuoteSome say this creates more acids too.
If you don't burn the gasses, they go up the chimney. The cooler the fire, the more chance the gasses will condense on the flue walls - this is where creosote comes from.
On the subject of seasoned wood ,ash is one of the few that will burn in a fairly green uncured state .It's not advisable though because it does lose heat value .
From my observation while good dry hickory probabley has the most heat value if you burn it rather green it will produce excessive amounts of creosote or so it appears to .
You also have to remember what you could get away with back in the day of the Round Oak or Warm Morning non air tights wouldn't do well with an air tight .Those non air tights kept the flue temperature up and burned most of the residue off .Whereas the air tights don't do .
I like the idea that I get all the btu's available out of my wood. Gasifiers and catalytic combusters are great for that. When I cut and split wood it is the same work to do hard wood as soft wood, so I prefer hardwood with more btu's. I feel like I get more warmth for the work.. I do like to burn soft wood in the shoulder seasons. Holmes
I keep hearing about the ash beetle slowly moving south through Pennsylvania toward me. Can you burn the wood of these dead trees. Can it be cut and sold for firewood? I would think that there are transport issues related to this beetle that would make ash a tough hardwood to purchase right now.
Each state has it's own rules and regs for this doctorb. Here's a thread about it that may contain some links helpful.
https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php/topic,11949.320.html
DR B -
Yes, you can burn wood that the Emerald Ash Borer has infested. Most states put some restrictions on the movement of firewood and ash logs once an area is infested.
Thanks guys. I'm on it.
WILL the EAB hitch a ride on other types of wood I don't cut much ash and if I do it will be a blow down and then it is cut and burned right away I don't keep ash in my wood pile just a ? thanks
What's goofy about all this EAB ,at least in Ohio is that firewood is not permitted to cross county lines .However lumber logs aren't under that edict .Does that make sense ??? ???
They might just as well lift the ban because it's already so far out of control nothing can be done about it .It killed every ash tree I have .My neighbor has a dead one,hundred foot and 4 feet across . .Biggest white ash I've seen in my life time .My largest is a hundred and a tad over 3 feet .--all dead -- :(
Don't you burn firewood? A new big woodshed might be in order. ;D
You mean the ash,of course I burn it .However I'd prefer to get all the lumber first I can salvage out of it .When it's gone it will be just like American chestnut,there will be no more .Fact is some of my dead ash are holding in excess of 1500 bd ft in each of them .That one of my neighbors has twice that .These are not pecker poles .
Now the "woodshed " in my case is a bunch of blue tarps .Try as they might they haven't figured a way to tax those yet--but I suppose they are working on it along with the air we breathe . ::) --- Oh don't get me started -----
They don't tax out buildings here as far as I can tell because I only pay about $386 here with house, shed and barn. And $27 bucks on 70 acres of woods, all the taxes dropped this year. 8)
Well I wish that were true here .Farmers get a break but nobody else does .
These stinkers use a shot from a navsat sattellite and superimpose it over the plot plan to see if you've altered any buildings during the year so they can tax you more .The infamous "eye in the sky " .Farm land taxes at $6.50 an acre but on a two acre field I have it costs me $150 and all I do is grow grass .The mowing type not the illeagal rope variety that stinks like a bucket of bung holes when it's burning or so they tell me .
I am pleased that the wood pile so far is 12' wide x 24' long x 6' high. This is getting me about 3.5 months of heat in bad (less than 15* with more than 10 mph wind) winter. Thanks to the largess of my neighbor, as he is sharing the damage from last winter's storms.
its rather intersting to me to see that am i the only one that lets oak and elm sit for over 2 years split, stacked, outside uncovered before i even consider buring it. I have one pile that i cut 2 years ago, that is a mix, with everything imagineable except pine that i will burn this year . im 30 now, been around firewood cince i was little, if the pile was covered too soon, all they do is bubble water out of the log, and no heat, also i remember being told, the rain helps wash the sap out.
How would rain wash sap out? Wood is hygroscopic, but it's not a sponge. Temperature, dew point and humidity determines the rate of movement of water in or out of wood. Wood moves toward equilibrium to the outside air.
Beenthere seasons his oak two years, it has a lot more water than our sugar maple, beech, yellow birch firewood to begin with.
Shelbycharger-
You are not the only one who cures their wood for 2 years. It's just not easy for the following reasons:
1). It takes up a lot of space. Many of us who burn over 8 cords a year don't have the under cover space for this winter's wood as well as the outdoor space for next winter's wood and the wood for the winter after that. So, to be ready for this coming winter, you need the space to stack 24 cords of wood.
2). You have to move it twice. First you cut, split and stack it outside. Then you move it a second time, placing the cured wood under cover the year it's to be burned.
Unlike you, I have only been heating completely by wood for 2 years. I am sure the 2 year rule is correct. Beenthere, and others, have been posting this suggestion for a while now. The moisture
content of my oak has been higher than I like (some of it 21 -22%, most of it 18% or so), but by mixing the dryer fuel with some of the wetter wood I have had no problems.
I think that I may be getting away with some of my fuel curing for only one season because it's split
and stacked by early spring, so I get a good 8 months of drying before I have to use it. People who start burning in October and burn through April or May have a much shorter drying season.
Sine I burn about 13 cords a year, I don't have the time or space to have 36 cords of wood split and stacked. So for many of us, it just doin' the best we can!
you burn 36 full cords.? at my parents house, grownin up is 4000 sq, we burnt every winter , a pile 16 ft long, 6 ft high and 7 to 8 rows per pile, and we did about 1 and a half like that. just buring wood only. Now my house is 1800, and im goin to be heating with wood this year when im home, with a 1940's? 500 lb cast iron stove. just the upstairs, so i think im pritty much set for a few winters with what i have out back now.
DoctorB -
Not only is your heating season shorter, your drying season is longer down in Maryland than it is for some of the folks further north. You don't get much drying done when your wood pile stays down below freezing. Water just doesn't migrate through the wood very well when it's frozen. What moisture may come out then is usually just the surface moisture.
Here in the Champlain Valley of Vermont, I've found I can get my wood well below 20% MC in less than a year, but only if I do everything right (and not if it's Oak): split and stack in single rows, uncovered, exposed to sun and wind. (I move it under my woodshed lean-to as we come into the fall.) Wood loses a lot of it's moisture through the end grain, so the fact that I'm cutting 16" lengths makes a lot of difference over someone who is cutting 24" lengths. I also tend to split smaller than some folks. It dries faster, and it burns more efficiently (even at the same moisture content as larger pieces). For Oak, I need at least two good drying seasons (two summers) to get it ready to burn.
You've got a good plan if your Oak isn't quite ready, and you mix it with something that is drier. Once you have the fire up and running, it's tends to be the average moisture content of the charge in the firebox that matters (within reason -- I would not be throwing in fresh cut oak, for example). Obviously, it's better to have it all appropriately dry, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
What matters is the results of your drying process, not just the calendar time it's been drying. Those results will vary based on part of the country, species of wood, stacking method, length of the pieces, exposure to sun and wind (stacked in the woods around here dries a whole lot slower than out in the open).
For a few years, I experimented with different methods/locations of drying and stacking. I borrowed a friends moisture meter, occasionally pulled pieces from the stacks and checked them to see how they were drying. (OK, I admit it, I was going overboard there, but I was curious to check out some of the old wives' tails about drying wood.) I don't do that anymore, since I have a system down, and I've developed a bit of a sense for how dry a piece of wood is. I also have enough space to store plenty of wood, so what I start burning each fall has been through two summers of drying. However, it's nice to know that if I get in a bind, I can get down to the 15-18% moisture content (on most species) in less than 6 months, if I need to.
John Mc
Quote from: John Mc on June 19, 2011, 09:41:04 AM
I'm cutting 16" lengths makes a lot of difference over someone who is cutting 24" lengths. I also tend to split smaller than some folks. It dries faster, and it burns more efficiently (even at the same moisture content as larger pieces).
Probably dries quicker, but doesn't burn more efficiently. A larger chunk doesn't burn as fast, because it requires more heat to get to the centre of the chunk, thus burn time is longer. Doesn't take much to heat a piece of newspaper enough to burn either, lots of surface area and little bulk, heats up fast with a match.
With my setup, it dries even further in the basement from the furnace heat. I use some "fall wood" which is outside an additional 5 or 6 months after splitting to season more than the rest. Wood is cut the fall before. After that 1.5 cords of "fall wood" is burnt the rest of the wood has lost a lot more moisture and pulls itself apart from checking. This "fall wood" takes me from late September to Christmas. By Christmas it is getting a lot colder outside.
Shelbycharger-
No, I don't burn 36 cords of wood :D :D. well, in some ways of thinking, I do. It just takes me three years to do it.
My point is that, if you really want 2 full years of drying, you need to be 2 full years ahead of what you are going to burn this winter. Now I realize that, if you put up one winter's worth early in the spring, and let it dry for 2 summers, that would not constitute 2 full years but would constitute 2 full drying seasons, which is what everybody is optimally trying to do.
I heat 5000 sq. ft., but inefficiently, as I have really two houses joined in the middle. I heat with an OWB, If I only had one basement and one heat exchanger, instead of duplicate, I am sure that my fuel requirements might drop 30 - 40%. So, yes, I do use 13 cords per year, and it sounds like an awful lot. There's work involved and I don't want to move the wood twice, but still do for a portion of it.
I routinely burn collected stuff for the first month, and then start heating in earnest in December. I start with a mixture of 2 year cured oak (I usually have about 5-6 cords of that) and other oak that's been drying 8 months. Seems to work fine. I don't think my routine sounds much different than SwampDonkey's. For instance, right now, I have about 6 cords of oak and locust that's been seasoned all of last summer, and about 16 cords of standing dead oak that will season until I need it this winter. The excess from that will pass on to the following winter.
Quote from: SwampDonkey on June 19, 2011, 02:19:21 PM
Quote from: John Mc on June 19, 2011, 09:41:04 AM
... I also tend to split smaller than some folks. It dries faster, and it burns more efficiently (even at the same moisture content as larger pieces).
Probably dries quicker, but doesn't burn more efficiently. ...
Actually, in many applications, smaller pieces do burn more efficiently, assuming you define efficiency as getting the maximum number of btus out of a given quantity of wood. But that isn't necessarily the only goal of most folks who are burning wood. To varying degrees, most folks are also factoring in labor and hassle involved -- in splitting, & stacking, as well as in loading the stove (smaller pieces burn faster, which can require more trips to load the stove, unless you've got enough thermal mass or other means to capture, hold and release heat from a fast, hot fire).
One of the folks I cut wood with is an engineer who has designed high efficiency, clean burning wood boiler systems. He's a stickler for burning with maximum efficiency. We used to tease him about a wood pile that was not too much bigger than kindling size for his wood stove. He gave a bunch of us the argument about efficiency of burning smaller pieces and urged us to try it. Most of us who have tried it have decided to stick with the smaller pieces. Those who didn't said their reasons were due to the fact that they were more interested in achieving longer burn times than in squeezing out every btu possible from their wood.
At any rate, the effect on efficiency of small vs. large pieces is greatly overshadowed by burning properly dried wood, and by operating the stove or boiler correctly (i.e. adjusting the air flow properly).
It takes a couple years to get oak good and dry .It will burn after a year but not as good as after two .
Of all of them ash is probabley the fastest drying .Don't let maple lay in the rounds very long becuase it will rot .Split it up in a timely fashion you'll have no trouble with it .
It wet waether you need to keep hickory covered because it doesn't take weather well like oak .Locust on the other hand does take weather well and has the same BTU per cord as hickory .
I (finally) just finished reading through this whole thread, and although there really isn't all that much talk about what the title of the thread implies, there is still a lot of great information in here. ;D
I decided I will try burning softwoods this year in my Woodstock Fireview. I'll see how it likes it, and decide for myself. I do realize that, above all, it's the moisture content in the wood that makes the biggest difference.
Thanks for some good info guys! I've learned a lot reading this.
I decided I will try burning softwoods this year in my Woodstock Fireview. I'll see how it likes it, and decide for myself. I do realize that, above all, it's the moisture content in the wood that makes the biggest difference.
[/quote]
I have that stove also, have used it for 3 years and we love it. Most of my wood has dried for a few years. I have used wood dried less than 1 year but I mix it with dried wood, pine burns fine. Holmes
QuoteI have that stove also, have used it for 3 years and we love it. Most of my wood has dried for a few years. I have used wood dried less than 1 year but I mix it with dried wood, pine burns fine. Holmes
Great to know, thanks Holmes. We are very happy with that stove. It's the first big purchase my wife and I made with the intention of keeping it for a looooooong time. We've already gotten a lot of enjoyment sitting by the stove through our first winter.