weird question -rounds vs c/s

Kevin* said:

if i go into the woods to get my firewood can i fit more wood in the pickup bed with rounds or is it better to split on site? ballpark if i have a 4x4x8 bed and put round in there would it be more than a cord?

also is there a way to calculate the # of cords of wood when it's in log form? i looked and couln't find a caulator online.

thanks!

Click to expand...

Depends on how you stack the splits in the truck - if you could stack splits tightly in the same area, I'd guess splits would win. Cheers!

Splits will fit more. But usually I just throw the rounds in and kick them out at the house. A truck load of rounds is weight enough. If the wood were light and seasoned I guess you could stack a bed full and not crush a spring.

Depends on the sizes of rounds. Splits have more air spaces but they also fill big air spaces.

I think I would be thinking about the time factor. Short on time,just throw the rounds on and split later!


Gary

This discussion comes up with some regularity here, in one form or another. You would be doing the forum members a valuable service if you'd build the bed sides up so that you have exactly 128 ft³ available for cargo, then make one trip to the woods and bring back a full load of load of rounds, then split and stack those rounds and measure what you end up with. Then go back out in the woods and split a load on site and carefully stack the splits snugly in to completely fill the same cargo volume. That second load we should be able to confidently say is one cord. Tell us all what the difference turned out to be. Ready...GO! Rick

I've seen it demonstrated (can't remember where) that a cord of rounds contains more "actual Wood" than a cord of splits, so I would wager that stacking it in 8' lengths and cutting and splitting it when you get home would result in more than a cord when you restack.

Ehouse

Depending on the weight of the wood (I don't have racks on my truck) I stand it on end in 4' lengths in the bed. You can get a a bit over 3/4 cord that way.

rwhite said:

Depending on the weight of the wood (I don't have racks on my truck) I stand it on end in 4' lengths in the bed. You can get a a bit over 3/4 cord that way.

Click to expand...

Pics or it didn't happen

Going more than split length creates a lot of air space unless the wood is perfectly straight.

(6) 16" 4ft diameter rounds have a volume of 8x2x2x3.14. This gives you over 100 cubic feet of solid wood in a 128 cu ft of space with a lot of room left for smaller rounds to be added. Most agree that getting 100 cu ft of splits into 128 cu ft of space is only done by the masters.

Of course, irregularity of rounds and splits will keep this debate open until the end of time. I like to leave the wood in as few pieces as possible as far into the process as possible to reduce handling.

From a course on hydrology - if you filled a large room with bowling balls and filled another with BBs both would have the same volume of air between the balls. In other words it doesn't matter the size of the sphere, so long as they are the same size they will take up the same volume.

If you cut chunks of wood all the same size and pack them all the same the volume shouldn't change. That never happens so I would add 10-20% to any trunk calculation for volume once C/S/S.

k9brain said:

From a course on hydrology - if you filled a large room with bowling balls and filled another with BBs both would have the same volume of air between the balls...

Click to expand...

Fine perhaps when the ratio of size between the balls and the room are that high. Now take those same balls and see how many you can fit into say, a steamer trunk. The amount of wasted air space would be more.

If you had 3 foot diameter logs 5 feet long, how many of those could you fit into a 4x4x8 space? Like I said, size matters!

k9brain said:

From a course on hydrology - if you filled a large room with bowling balls and filled another with BBs both would have the same volume of air between the balls. In other words it doesn't matter the size of the sphere, so long as they are the same size they will take up the same volume.

Click to expand...

We're not hauling spheres. They change geometry when split, so the packing density, hexagonal closest packing or face centered cubic models don't necessarily apply.

Adios Pantalones said:

k9brain said:

From a course on hydrology - if you filled a large room with bowling balls and filled another with BBs both would have the same volume of air between the balls. In other words it doesn't matter the size of the sphere, so long as they are the same size they will take up the same volume.

Click to expand...

We're not hauling spheres. They change geometry when split, so the packing density, hexagonal closest packing or face centered cubic models don't necessarily apply.

Click to expand...

Yes we are. In a way. What does are round look like from end on? Round. The example could stand as is.

If you have large rounds of uniform size maybe split a few and use the splits to fill the voids. If the rounds are not all the same size, the smaller ones can fill the gaps between the large ones.

ISeeDeadBTUs said:

rwhite said:

Depending on the weight of the wood (I don't have racks on my truck) I stand it on end in 4' lengths in the bed. You can get a a bit over 3/4 cord that way.

Click to expand...

Pics or it didn't happen

Click to expand...

Guess that will have to wait until next load. Only got a 1/2T truck so I can't do it with green or hardwood but fir and pine it works great.

LLigetfa said:

If you had 3 foot diameter logs 5 feet long, how many of those could you fit into a 4x4x8 space?

Click to expand...

I know it was a rhetorical question but no takers?

The answer is you can only fit one in that space. Oh, and BTW, it calculates to just 35 cu ft. If you split it up, you might squeeze almost 3 of them in.

LLigetfa said:

LLigetfa said:

If you had 3 foot diameter logs 5 feet long, how many of those could you fit into a 4x4x8 space?

Click to expand...

I know it was a rhetorical question but no takers?

The answer is you can only fit one in that space. Oh, and BTW, it calculates to just 35 cu ft. If you split it up, you might squeeze almost 3 of them in.

Click to expand...

Yep, transporting anything longer than split length gets real inefficient real quick with a light truck/trailer. Make 2 cuts in that log, do the same with a second log, maybe halve a couple of them and then throw some smaller stuff in and around before you put the gate up and throw the net over makes pretty efficient use of 128 cu ft of space. I've brought more than a few 1 cord loads home this way.

rayg said:

Yes we are. In a way. What does are round look like from end on? Round. The example could stand as is.

Click to expand...

Not often I say this as flat as I will, but this is wrong.
1) a round is a cylinder (assuming it's not a crotch/ugly), not a sphere- this makes a real difference
2) when you split a piece it is no longer a cylinder either

The best practical solution is probably rounds with some splits stuffed between them to take up interstitial space.

I am sure I could stack quite a bit more split wood in the same space as full rounds
depending on the diameter of the rounds
there are so many variables there is no correct answer

rayg said:

Adios Pantalones said:

k9brain said:

From a course on hydrology - if you filled a large room with bowling balls and filled another with BBs both would have the same volume of air between the balls. In other words it doesn't matter the size of the sphere, so long as they are the same size they will take up the same volume.

Click to expand...

We're not hauling spheres. They change geometry when split, so the packing density, hexagonal closest packing or face centered cubic models don't necessarily apply.

Click to expand...

Yes we are. In a way. What does are round look like from end on? Round. The example could stand as is.

Click to expand...

did you pass geometry class??

The point of the example of uniformly sized spheres is that the ratio of solid material to void spaces does not depend on the size of the sphere. Similarly when you're stacking perfect cylinders the ratio of solid material to voids does not depend on the size of the cylinders , although it is not the same ratio as you find with spheres. This is true if you look at an infinite or at least really large space. If you look at a situation where the size of the space is similar to the size of the cylinder, like it is with a trailer and firewood, then the edge effects become important. If you are stacking 1 inch versus 2 inch diameter rounds (and therefore the ratio of the space to the size of the cylinders is much larger than it is with big rounds) the edge effect is probably not important.

If the shapes are not all the same size then the smaller ones fill the gaps between the larger ones and more wood will fit in the trailer.

All I know is that when I have a large stack of rounds, after I split & stack the splits, the stack is noticeably smaller.
Al

ironpony said:

rayg said:

Adios Pantalones said:

k9brain said:

From a course on hydrology - if you filled a large room with bowling balls and filled another with BBs both would have the same volume of air between the balls. In other words it doesn't matter the size of the sphere, so long as they are the same size they will take up the same volume.

Click to expand...

We're not hauling spheres. They change geometry when split, so the packing density, hexagonal closest packing or face centered cubic models don't necessarily apply.

Click to expand...

Yes we are. In a way. What does are round look like from end on? Round. The example could stand as is.

Click to expand...

did you pass geometry class??

Click to expand...

Doesn't appear so, but more to the point, the BB or bowling ball examples only work when the spheres are exactly the same size.
Since this is far from the case with either rounds or splits, the analogy is entirely useless to the current discussion.