Good for firewood?

Page 2 of 3  


e

ny

't

to

ly

g

ed.

some

h

p

n SW

front.

I see. So your complaint about it burning "poorly" comes down to not knowing how to regulate a fire.
Bottom line: You are the common variety uninformed "wood snob". I wonder just how much wood you personally have actually burned in a stove.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<stuff snipped>

<Bottom line: You are the common variety uninformed "wood snob". I wonder just how much wood you personally have actually burned in a stove.>
Sounds like you two are going to have a "flame war" (just couldn't resist!)
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

n

!)

Good one :)
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:05:22 -0500, dpb wrote:

I bring wood for a lot of group campouts, and I've never seen any wood that was "virtually worthless" for firewood.
Sure, some burns fast, others might burn smoky, but if the mass is there, they've all burned well enough for us.
Disclaimer: Most of our camping is at the beach, so, there is usually consistent and strong wind to blow smoke away from us.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/12/2013 12:16 PM, Danny D wrote:

...
Presumed OP wasn't talking for campfire use...sure it'll burn (sorta') but in fireplace or stove you definitely won't like
a) the burn time, b) the difficulty of starting/keeping fire going, and c) the amount of ash to have to carry out.
All in all, if there's any thing else to choose from, you can almost be guaranteed it'll serve better than cottonwood. But yes, in really, really deprived wood locales folks will make do w/ what they have and some does get used here for the purpose. All in all as noted above, given the choice I take the trimmings of the Siberian elms for the use here over the cottonwood even and generally put the cottonwood trimmings in the burn pit rather than cutting it up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:42:45 -0500, dpb wrote:

Good point!
I have a fireplace, but it doesn't burn wood so I was only thinking campfire.
Did the OP specify the purpose of the burning? If it's inside the home, I can easily see that smoke might make a huge difference!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why? If you can smell smoke inside the house there is something seriously wrong with the installation or chimney.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True, it would have been the fireplace, in the basement.

I have the previous tree that fell near my house, which I cut up and saved (been about a year now) plus there is another tree that fell the other direction, into the stream bed. Were I short of wood, I would have cut that one up. (not cottonwood, but I forget what it was)
Plus all the old rails and pickets from my fence (none that are treated)
Plus, the fireplace looked good to entertain girls, but since I don't do that anymore, it's less important. Still I enjoyed watching it myself, but I can't sit at my workbench and have a good view of the fire, and the pile of projects not yet finished has spread across the floor to where it is too close to the fireplace, so the fire need closer attention than it did.
Living near the stream is charming, insteresting, and nice in several ways, but the combination of being in a valley, even a little one (40 feet deep?) and having tall trees on two sides of me, means I think the breeze I get is nowhere near as much as people a couple blocks away get. I guess that's one reason in cowboy movies, or Kansas, people build their houses on the top of the hill.
(I now have a big table fan at the foot of my bed, and a 4" fan on the window sill above my head, so the lack of a breeze in the bedroom won't be such a problem this summer. .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

, dpb wrote:

What is your opinion on Willow as firewood? It is the only species readily available here in the Palouse (Washington State). Haven't looked recently but IIANM it ranks right with Cottonwood at near the bottom of the charts. I heated my house almost 100% with Willow for over 30 years because anything else required a 100 mile roundtrip (or more) for Fir or Tamarack. Willow won the "cost per btu" hands down as I could get all I wanted withing a few miles of the house. Used 6-7 cord/yr. Last winter was my first using Black Locust (right at the top of the charts). The locust borere moved in around 20 years ago and I have been cutting it for the past 6 years. burned the last of the willow the prior season.
Yes, the use of the "poor quality" wood require feeding the stove more often and thus the usual complain "it leaves a lot of ash. Oddly, burn more wood for the same heat will result in "more ash". Not a surprise.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you have it nailed. While some wood is beter than other, if you do not mind the work and the cost is much less, any wood is fine to burn. Maybe with the exception of pine.
I have burnt a lot of poplar wood because the trees were on my land and in the way . I needed them cut and did not want to waste the wood. I could cut what I wanted when I wanted. To get oak or other hard wood, I would either have to buy it, or wait for someone to call me about a tree. I had to load the stove about 3 times as much in a day as I do for oak.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Willow is OK if you soak it full of used crankcase oil. . Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . .

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Another moron heard. You probably have never burned wood or even knew anyone who had. But then I am talking to a moron who doesn't know that top posting is anathema in usenet.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Live trees are fine for firewood. It does take a while for it to dry enough to use. The shorter pieces you cut it in , the shorter will be the drying time as the wood dries mostly from the ends. You should be able to burn it in Jan or Feb and get some heat out of it if you cut it about 18 inches long. You can burn it sooner if you want,but it will not put off as much heat as you are still boiling off muchof the moisture in the wood.
If cutting down live trees, try to wait for all the leaves to fall off as the sap will run toward the roots and it will not be as wet and will not take as long to dry.
Even trees that are just cut down will burn, but you don't get as much heat and maybe more smoke.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PS: You don't need to know this:
The reason why live wood is easier to cut than dry wood is because wood cells store H2O in two ways:
1. Inside the hollow cells there's a liquid which is mostly water, and 2. Inside the wood cell walls, gazillions of individual H2O molecules are weakly chemically bound to the layers of cellulose that make up the cell wall's thickness by hydrogen bonding. This is not liquid water but chemically bound up H2O molecules the same as you have in the gypsum core of drywall.
When wood dries, the liquid water inside the hollow cells is the first to evaporate, and that water evaporates (and is absorbed) 15 times faster at the wood end grain than across the wood grain. So, the fastest way to air dry a tree trunk is to cut it into thin disks.
After the liquid water evaporates, the chemically bound up H2O molecules in the wood cell walls are lost to the surrounding air. As that happens, the cell walls become thinner and stiffer, exactly the same way that a cellulose sponge gets thinner and stiffer as it dries out.
The thinning and stiffening of the wood cell walls makes dried wood harder and stronger than wet wood, but that harder and stronger wood is also harder to cut.
It's all the water in the live wood that makes it lousy for burning. Much (if not most) of the heat produced by burning the cellulose of the wood goes into boiling off (or otherwise driving out) the water from the wood.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:28:17 +0200, nestork wrote:

So that's why the wood chippers told me my (old dry) brush was exceptionally hard when they cut it!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:35:06 -0400, Ralph Mowery wrote:

I don't understand this?
If I just cut, say, an 18" chunk of the tree, and I'm holding it in my hands, how is the sap going to matter in terms of drying time?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

He means that while the tree is standing, the sap will run toward the roots. I don't know that myself, but Ralph has never lied to me before. Maybe it relates to maple sap running in the fall (after the leaves are off?)
Maybe it relates to this: After I cut the part of the trunk resting on my woody bushes, it didn't fall anymore.
So I cut the main trunk near the edge of my yard. I didn't cut all the way through because I couldn't decide which way the cut-off part would go when it was free**. I left some uncut and then used a rope to pull on the trunk, When after cutting more the third time, I got it to break, at the uncut part, it ripped off about 6 feet of bark.
Under the bark, was an almost blemish free white layer that was positively wet. When I toucheed it my fingers got wet. The liquid was clear, but that was the sap, wasn't it?
I should have looked for xylem and phloem. The bark is still lthere but tomorrow will be two days of drying.
**It went straight down, but because of the way it was resting, I could see it sliding off the bushes towards me and putting a 1 or 2 inch dent in my chest, or knocking me off the ladder onto the picket fence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 01:38:48 -0400, micky wrote:

Depends on the tree, and the locale, but my foot-thick oak wouldn't burn in a campfire within a month of cutting; but, a year later, it burned like it was nuclear power.
Here in the Silicon Valley, it's dry weather, so your locale may also make a difference.
There's (probably) nothing wrong with throwing it in a stream bed, (although here in California, you'd probably need a permit); but, I question why a stream bed? Why not just pile it alongside?
Or, is the point for the wood to float downstream, off your property?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

burn in a campfire within a month of cutting; but, a year later, it burned like it was nuclear power. <<<<
who woulda thunk?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I guess the first time was off season? . Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . .

burn in a campfire within a month of cutting; but, a year later, it burned like it was nuclear power. <<<<
who woulda thunk?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.