Hardwood not hard, softwood not soft! (necessarily)

[George E. Cawthon]

And I though you were agreeing that angiosperm means hardwood. Now you think deciduous means hardwood, or deciduous means angiosperm? Hint: neither are true, so what do you really think?

[anoldfart2]

If your hardwood is not hard, I suggest you get some viagra !!! Take a couple pills and your woody will get real hard... :)

[Bill]

Well now we are getting to the crux of the matter here, and the main reason I was learning about this to begin with...

For burning wood in a woodstove, I have read that "hardwoods" are better (seasoned of course). Now with my new understanding that there can be "hard" or dense "hardwoods" or soft (not dense) hardwoods and hard or soft softwoods...

-Is it correct to say that it is best to use a seasoned "hard" or "dense" hardwood *or* a seasoned "hard" or "dense" softwood for burning in a woodstove?

-Or is it correct to say that it is best to use a seasoned "hardwood" in a woodstove be it hard (dense) or soft (not dense), and not a "softwood"?

-Or is it correct to say that it is best to use a seasoned "hardwood" in a woodstove that is hard (dense), but not a soft (not dense) hardwood, and not a softwood?

[Rob]

I burn a lot of wood, but I don't claim to be a universal expert on wood burning. Where I live the forests are 95%+ hardwoods and hardwoods are known by us in this region to be the better trees to burn largely because they do not create the creosote that softwoods do. I know people on this board who live in regions where the forests are primarily softwoods will say that they do fine burning softwoods.

The native and/or common softwoods we have here in Pennsylvania such as Hemlock, various pines, Juniper (comnmonly called cedar here), or varieties of spruce or firs planted by people, and others are never burned in a woodstove or fireplace by anyone I know.

The woods I have in my woods, shown in my preference for burning are as follows:

1) Oak of any type 2) Ash (not as high BTUs as oak, but a good burner and easy to split) 3) Sassafras (burns nice and warm in a stove, not great for a fireplace because it will send burning embers across the room) 4) Maple of any type 5) Various other less used species such as Hickory, Aspen, and others

I almost never burn some "softer" hardwoods such as sweet gum, willow of any variety or poplar.

[gideonf]

Here is a very handy website I came across when I was looking into getting wood for my woodstove. It has a chart with many woods and how good they are for a fire.

Regards,

Gideon

[Harry K]

Other than the creosote problem which is grossly over hyped the rule of thumb is:

The best heat value comes from the densest wood. That will generally by some type of hardwood in your area. There are exceptions to everything though. For example, black walnut is fairly dense but I find it to not be a desireable firewood.

There are great areas where the only readily available wood is softwood and it burns just fine. Maybe an extra chimney cleaning is required but that is about it. The real problem with softwood is that most of it is not very dense (compared to the average hardwood) so you burn more of it.

Harry K

[Harry K]

So in addition to being pedantic for no reason you also are incapable of understanding simple posts?

Harry K

[Rob]

My point is: if you live in an area filled with hardwoods, it is not worth it to burn softwoods that create extra creosote problems in my opinion. I agree with you though on Black Walnut. It just does not seem to burn well no matter if it is very well seasoned or not. Elm seems to be somewhat similar, although not as bad as Walnut.

Rob

[Doug Miller]

Nearly all deciduous trees are hardwood. And, as noted repeatedly in this thread, that's *not* what defines the difference between hardwoods and softwoods anyway.

[Doug Miller]

No, it doesn't. Examples: lead is quite a bit denser than steel; liquid water is denser than frozen water. If you think about it a little bit, I'm sure you can come up with more on your own. Maybe even enough to convice a dedicated pedant that there isn't really any relationship between density and hardness.

Technically, no, it's not, but the hard-vs-soft classification is exactly interchangeable with a specific botanical classification and is therefore functionally identical with it.

[Doug Miller]

No. Softwoods should not be burned in a fireplace or woodstove if hardwoods are available to you. Most softwoods contain resins that cause creosote buildup in the chimney or flue, which increases the risk of chimney fires. If you must burn softwoods, make sure to have your chimney cleaned frequently. Please note that some hardwoods, notably beech, *also* present this risk.

Yes.

Well, that too. The denser the wood, the higher its fuel value in a given volume. A hundred pounds of wood has the same fuel value, whether it's a hundred pounds of hickory or yellow-poplar. Of course, the latter is a much larger pile than the former, and you'll have to stoke your stove much more often. Also, the denser hardwoods (hickory, white oak, sugar maple) tend to burn to coals, while most of the less-dense hardwoods (poplar, sycamore, silver maple) burn to ashes. Coals make a longer-lasting, hotter fire.

>

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Many people do burn softwoods as they are readily available. One trick is to burn a smaller, hotter fire rather than a big pile of near smoldering wood.

[Doug Miller]

I'm doing just fine in that regard. I think you need to take some classes yourself, though, starting with Intro Logic.

See paragraph below, where this is explained for you.

Whatever....

You may know exactly what the botanical terms mean, but you don't appear to have the slightest idea how they relate to the industry terms.

Because (a) most people wouldn't have any idea what those terms mean, and (b) the terms "hardwood" and "softwood" are much more useful in a practical context.

Are you by any chance a college professor?

You're still missing the point. Noboby ever said that all angiosperms are harder than all gymnosperms.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion, even though you may be the only person on the planet to hold it -- or be confused by the classification.

[Larry Caldwell]

Great article, Peter. Could I ask you to please repost it to alt.forestry? The guys there are always interested in information like that. I read it through twice (a rarity on usenet) and will go back and read it again.

In fact, I may try to obtain some podocarp seedlings, since the climate at my place is very similar to parts of New Zealand. This area is already using NZ radiata pine for plantations. I have a small plantation going. It unfortunately seems to fall prey to the same tree pests that have almost wiped out sugar pine in this area.

Just as a side note, I would like to point out that wood hardness and wood strength are not the same thing. An example is Douglas Fir (actually a larch - pseudotsuga menziesi), which is softer than red oak, but structurally stronger in horizontal supporting member applications. A Douglas Fir 2x12 floor joist will support more weight than a red oak

2x12. The oak is a much harder wood, but not stronger.

[Offbreed]

The best rule of thumb is "the more a cubic foot of it weighs when completely dry, the better it is for firewood".

If you are burning round sticks, the ones with the tightest growth rings last longest, all else equal.

[Bill]

Thank you. I understand it now - the resin, etc. (I thought it was wood which was soft (not dense) which made it less desirable for burning.)

[Jim Yanik]

"Harry K" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

The problem,then as now,was not with the "tea",it was with the representatives(or lack of them).

Throw the *representatives* "in the harbor".

Apologies if I boogered the attribs.

[George E. Cawthon]

I'm not the one that wrote: My understanding is that they are deciduous and thus by definition are softwood.

[George E. Cawthon]

Try sticking to wood not different materials

Well if you agree that technically hard and soft are not botanical classifications, why do you keep saying "botanically?"

You keep saying they are equivalent, but it isn't true. What is true is that some groups may define hard/soft as being equivalent to some botanical classification. That definition is not universally accepted and it is certainly not accepted by botanists.

Now can you define "misnomer?" That is exactly what hardwood is if one uses it interchangeably with angiosperm.

[George E. Cawthon]

You must be thinking of something else, as Douglas fir is not a larch. The common name "larch" (also called tamarack) is usually applied on to the genus Larix. Douglas fir trees are nothing like larch trees.