Does unseasoned wood still burn ok?

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Danno77

Minister of Fire
Oct 27, 2008
5,008
Hamilton, IL
last night I brought in a big tub of oak. Same tub that I always use, BUT i was barely able to carry this stupid thing. I'm not going to make any guestimates to volume and weight, so don't ask. Maybe we'll get to that point later in the conversation.

Anyway, I raked the coals to the side, loaded it up, and ran with door cracked ever so slightly (with primary at 100%) for 15 minutes, then closed the door (primary still 100%) for 15 minutes, then halfway for 15 minutes, and then completely shut with secondaries roaring and within a few minutes the top was reading at about 550. Then I went to bed.

This startup procedure is pretty much what I do with every other load of wood, maybe it took a few extra minutes. Given the weight of this wood, I just assumed it had to be less than seasoned. I can get the MM on it tonight, but before I do, let me ask this...

If this wood was truly high MC would I be able to get to those stovetop temps and hold a nice secondary burn like I was doing?

wood is red oak, two years on the stack.
 
They always say proof is in the pudding (even backwoods) so my guess its dry.
 
Danno77 said:
last night I brought in a big tub of oak. Same tub that I always use, BUT i was barely able to carry this stupid thing. I'm not going to make any guestimates to volume and weight, so don't ask. Maybe we'll get to that point later in the conversation.

Anyway, I raked the coals to the side, loaded it up, and ran with door cracked ever so slightly (with primary at 100%) for 15 minutes, then closed the door (primary still 100%) for 15 minutes, then halfway for 15 minutes, and then completely shut with secondaries roaring and within a few minutes the top was reading at about 550. Then I went to bed.

This startup procedure is pretty much what I do with every other load of wood, maybe it took a few extra minutes. Given the weight of this wood, I just assumed it had to be less than seasoned. I can get the MM on it tonight, but before I do, let me ask this...

If this wood was truly high MC would I be able to get to those stovetop temps and hold a nice secondary burn like I was doing?

wood is red oak, two years on the stack.


Yep, you can burn wet wood. It takes more work to get the temps up, but it is possible. I was able to get the Heritage up to 450-500 with crappy wood. I was able to get the Vigilant up to 650 with wet wood as well.

It's a LOT easier working with dry wood, that for sure.
 
Somebody want to send me some fresh cut green red oak, I will send it back to them in 2 years and it will be dry.
 
BrowningBAR said:
Danno77 said:
last night I brought in a big tub of oak. Same tub that I always use, BUT i was barely able to carry this stupid thing. I'm not going to make any guestimates to volume and weight, so don't ask. Maybe we'll get to that point later in the conversation.

Anyway, I raked the coals to the side, loaded it up, and ran with door cracked ever so slightly (with primary at 100%) for 15 minutes, then closed the door (primary still 100%) for 15 minutes, then halfway for 15 minutes, and then completely shut with secondaries roaring and within a few minutes the top was reading at about 550. Then I went to bed.

This startup procedure is pretty much what I do with every other load of wood, maybe it took a few extra minutes. Given the weight of this wood, I just assumed it had to be less than seasoned. I can get the MM on it tonight, but before I do, let me ask this...

If this wood was truly high MC would I be able to get to those stovetop temps and hold a nice secondary burn like I was doing?

wood is red oak, two years on the stack.


Yep, you can burn wet wood. It takes more work to get the temps up, but it is possible. I was able to get the Heritage up to 450-500 with crappy wood. I was able to get the Vigilant up to 650 with wet wood as well.

It's a LOT easier working with dry wood, that for sure.
ok, that's what I was thinking, but wasn't sure. I keep on top of any buildup in the chimney anyway, so even if it was so green that I'm gunking up the system, then it wouldn't be a problem.

I'm like you, oldspark, I don't find that it needs the standard three years, but I should be a couple of years ahead anyway, so three years should do it. This particular stack was probably too tight with the other stacks, so I won't be surprised if I find out that it didn't season like it should even though it's been stacked for two years. Besides, there's a healthy mix of walnut and hickory in there and I find that they season in about a year, so mixed loads would be even nicer.
 
Danno77 said:
BrowningBAR said:
Danno77 said:
last night I brought in a big tub of oak. Same tub that I always use, BUT i was barely able to carry this stupid thing. I'm not going to make any guestimates to volume and weight, so don't ask. Maybe we'll get to that point later in the conversation.

Anyway, I raked the coals to the side, loaded it up, and ran with door cracked ever so slightly (with primary at 100%) for 15 minutes, then closed the door (primary still 100%) for 15 minutes, then halfway for 15 minutes, and then completely shut with secondaries roaring and within a few minutes the top was reading at about 550. Then I went to bed.

This startup procedure is pretty much what I do with every other load of wood, maybe it took a few extra minutes. Given the weight of this wood, I just assumed it had to be less than seasoned. I can get the MM on it tonight, but before I do, let me ask this...

If this wood was truly high MC would I be able to get to those stovetop temps and hold a nice secondary burn like I was doing?

wood is red oak, two years on the stack.


Yep, you can burn wet wood. It takes more work to get the temps up, but it is possible. I was able to get the Heritage up to 450-500 with crappy wood. I was able to get the Vigilant up to 650 with wet wood as well.

It's a LOT easier working with dry wood, that for sure.
ok, that's what I was thinking, but wasn't sure. I keep on top of any buildup in the chimney anyway, so even if it was so green that I'm gunking up the system, then it wouldn't be a problem.

I'm like you, oldspark, I don't find that it needs the standard three years, but I should be a couple of years ahead anyway, so three years should do it. This particular stack was probably too tight with the other stacks, so I won't be surprised if I find out that it didn't season like it should even though it's been stacked for two years. Besides, there's a healthy mix of walnut and hickory in there and I find that they season in about a year, so mixed loads would be even nicer.


Each year my wood supply gets better. But I still run into the occasional sizzler. Previous years were worse. It requires a lot of poking and cracking the door to get the fire going. You do waste a lot of fuel when the wood is really wet, but you can heat your home with it.

Burning dry wood is a far more enjoyable process, though.
 
BrowningBAR said:
Yep, you can burn wet wood. It takes more work to get the temps up, but it is possible. I was able to get the Heritage up to 450-500 with crappy wood. I was able to get the Vigilant up to 650 with wet wood as well.

It's a LOT easier working with dry wood, that for sure.

Geez, bad timing on my part. I just posted a video of me burning wet wood on another thread. Would have made more sense to post it on this one. Oh, well, I'm sure you'll find it. ;-)
 
When we first moved here, the PO's left us about a cord of split oak on the front porch, and we ended up c/s/s the other 4 cord for that first year.
None of it was dry. The first 3 years, we struggled with wood that was less than ideal, but it did burn. Took quite a while to get to temp, and by that time it was burned down quite a bit.
I have to admit, ...I'd start, wait, I'd TRY to start a fire and when it wouldn't get going, I'd put more wood in. The thought was the stove needed more wood to kick out more heat. Problem with that was the fire would go out of control and peg the thermometer (after I got around to buying one).
Too many problems having wet wood, so I dry my own and even though I still get a sizzler every now and again, this wood is gooder than it's ever been. I don't plan to go back to wet firewood.
I don't know of anyone around here who has as much wood put up as I do, other than sellers.
 
Battenkiller said:
BrowningBAR said:
Yep, you can burn wet wood. It takes more work to get the temps up, but it is possible. I was able to get the Heritage up to 450-500 with crappy wood. I was able to get the Vigilant up to 650 with wet wood as well.

It's a LOT easier working with dry wood, that for sure.

Geez, bad timing on my part. I just posted a video of me burning wet wood on another thread. Would have made more sense to post it on this one. Oh, well, I'm sure you'll find it. ;-)
lol, just commented on it while you were probably commenting on this, lol.
 
Battenkiller said:
BrowningBAR said:
Yep, you can burn wet wood. It takes more work to get the temps up, but it is possible. I was able to get the Heritage up to 450-500 with crappy wood. I was able to get the Vigilant up to 650 with wet wood as well.

It's a LOT easier working with dry wood, that for sure.

Geez, bad timing on my part. I just posted a video of me burning wet wood on another thread. Would have made more sense to post it on this one. Oh, well, I'm sure you'll find it. ;-)


Hmm... I don't see it. Checked the wood shed, the classic area, the inglenook. I must have missed it.
 
Battenkiller said:
pen said:
If there is enough primary air coming into the stove, the secondaries wouldn't have much to clean up anyway. The time that you'd really get creosote is when a large bed of hot coals gets a nice load of wood placed on it then the air is shut down too early. This and a general lack of air when closed down too far is how the old stoves get the title "smoke dragon." You are doing just fine so long as you don't have smoke pouring out of your chimney. If the exhaust is pretty much just heat waves, you are doing it right.

I couldn't agree more with this post. In fact, you can do it right even when the wood is "not quite up to standards"... :roll:


I took this video against a backdrop of trees so the heat waves would be easily visible. Against a clear blue sky the stove looked like it wasn't even running, but it was cruising along at 750ºF with a roaring secondary burn going on behind the fireback.

I did this run last season just for giggles and to make a point (mostly to myself). It is not a fun way to operate a stove, however. Way too much babysitting. But a good example of the meaninglessness of comparing emissions, secondary combustion, and heater efficiency. Obviously, the stove is burning this sopping wet stuff (close to 60% MCdb) very cleanly, and producing great gobs of heat in the room, but we all know this can't be done efficiently. At 600º on the pipe, a lot of heat was being sent up the chimney. In fact, I could have gotten a lot more efficiency out of the wood by choking the air all the way down "old timer" style, but Lordy, what a mess that would have made in the flue - a case of great thermal efficiency but horrendous combustion efficiency.





BTW please refrain from the need to assume I am advocating burning wet wood by showing this video. I burned plenty of wet wood when I was young and stupid, but now that I am old and stupid I have come to realize that dry burns much better. I just wanted to show that you can get a clean, hot burn and stay very warm using bad wood, but you won't get very good fuel economy doing it.
 
Danno77 said:
Battenkiller said:
pen said:
If there is enough primary air coming into the stove, the secondaries wouldn't have much to clean up anyway. The time that you'd really get creosote is when a large bed of hot coals gets a nice load of wood placed on it then the air is shut down too early. This and a general lack of air when closed down too far is how the old stoves get the title "smoke dragon." You are doing just fine so long as you don't have smoke pouring out of your chimney. If the exhaust is pretty much just heat waves, you are doing it right.

I couldn't agree more with this post. In fact, you can do it right even when the wood is "not quite up to standards"... :roll:


I took this video against a backdrop of trees so the heat waves would be easily visible. Against a clear blue sky the stove looked like it wasn't even running, but it was cruising along at 750ºF with a roaring secondary burn going on behind the fireback.

I did this run last season just for giggles and to make a point (mostly to myself). It is not a fun way to operate a stove, however. Way too much babysitting. But a good example of the meaninglessness of comparing emissions, secondary combustion, and heater efficiency. Obviously, the stove is burning this sopping wet stuff (close to 60% MCdb) very cleanly, and producing great gobs of heat in the room, but we all know this can't be done efficiently. At 600º on the pipe, a lot of heat was being sent up the chimney. In fact, I could have gotten a lot more efficiency out of the wood by choking the air all the way down "old timer" style, but Lordy, what a mess that would have made in the flue - a case of great thermal efficiency but horrendous combustion efficiency.





BTW please refrain from the need to assume I am advocating burning wet wood by showing this video. I burned plenty of wet wood when I was young and stupid, but now that I am old and stupid I have come to realize that dry burns much better. I just wanted to show that you can get a clean, hot burn and stay very warm using bad wood, but you won't get very good fuel economy doing it.


Thanks! I was able to locate the post just before you posted it.
 
Sure if you run the stove at damn near meltdown it won't smoke much, but stove running at day at 750* you could heat a 10,000 sq ft uninsulated castle to 75*!
 
NATE379 said:
Sure if you run the stove at damn near meltdown it won't smoke much, but stove running at day at 750* you could heat a 10,000 sq ft uninsulated castle to 75*!

My experience, unfortunately, differs. :lol:
 
Yes, you can burn wet wood......if you want to. I just don't want to nor see no need of all the problems it can cause. Danno, glad it worked okay for you.
 
In my short 3 months of experience burning I can say yes you can burn wet wood, it's just tough. I find I have to keep a hotter fire to allow additions to ignite. I can't let it burn down to coals. And I can't pack the box, I have to leave lots of space around the splits.

This results in much higher temps than I desire, along with a lot of heat going up the chimney. But the wood was free, the electric heat is not, and as long as I keep it hot I don't have any smoke/suit coming out, so I'm happy.

--Andy
 
That red oak is a strange animal when wet. The first year with the 30 I had my usual six cord of cut in spring and summer and burn in the fall/winter oak. That was while I was getting religion here but had to burn what I had. The red stuff would burn hot with scary rolling explosions up top of the firebox. But unpredictable as hell and near impossible to regulate. The white oak in those stacks was just like trying to burn rocks needing a bunch of primary air just like in the old stove.

Here is some of that wet red burning that year.
 

Attachments

  • nc-30kickin.jpg
    nc-30kickin.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 606
NATE379 said:
Sure if you run the stove at damn near meltdown it won't smoke much, but stove running at day at 750* you could heat a 10,000 sq ft uninsulated castle to 75*!

kid, your all in the koolaid and dont even know the flavor!
 
A comment on BK's video. That is how I burned for 21 years. Wet oak with the old slammer install insert cruising at six hundred or so with no smoke coming out of the chimney after the initial off gasing. But it took twice the wood to heat this joint that way.
 
Haha!

I just find it weird that I can heat my house with minimal wood where many folks are burning through 5-10 cords with warmer outdoor temps.

My place isn't anything special, spec house to min code really.

BrowningBAR said:
NATE379 said:
Sure if you run the stove at damn near meltdown it won't smoke much, but stove running at day at 750* you could heat a 10,000 sq ft uninsulated castle to 75*!

My experience, unfortunately, differs. :lol:
 
BrotherBart said:
That red oak is a strange animal when wet. The first year with the 30 I had my usual six cord of cut in spring and summer and burn in the fall/winter oak. That was while I was getting religion here but had to burn what I had. The red stuff would burn hot with scary rolling explosions up top of the firebox. But unpredictable as hell and near impossible to regulate. The white oak in those stacks was just like trying to burn rocks needing a bunch of primary air just like in the old stove.

Here is some of that wet red burning that year.




Oh my gosh I think I hear a sizzle, OAK :lol: ( did you blow in the ends to see if bubbles came out)
 
I'm just confused because anytime anyone comes here complaining about draft and no secondaries the first question that gets asked is "what's your wood like?"

Seems to me you can get a good burn going with wet wood, but everyone talks about how finicky these new EPA stoves are. Maybe I shouldn't talk until I split some of this open and put a MM to it.
 
NATE379 said:
Sure if you run the stove at damn near meltdown it won't smoke much, but stove running at day at 750* you could heat a 10,000 sq ft uninsulated castle to 75*!

Funny, many say you will get no heat from green wood. Then you demonstrate that you really can and someone comes along and says it will make too much heat. :lol:


For the record, I only ran it that high because:

A.) I was trying to show you could get plenty of heat from it.

B.) It was freakin' cold that day.


I can run my stove clean like that with green wood at a lower temp if I want to. No need to run it any hotter than the temp necessary to get a clean burn with dry wood. The big problem with green wood is that the evaporation of all that water makes it hard to get the fire hot enough for any combustion to occur in the first place. Once you have it up there, the trick is to keep it up there. I (need to) run my stove at about 600-650º regardless of the MC of the wood. The manufacturer of the stove (Vermont Castings) said in the manual that it is fine to run it at 750º when it is real cold out.

With green wood all it takes is a little more air and a very careful startup. After the initial half hour or so all the water has been driven out and it proceeds like any other burn. Takes a bit more feeding to get the same heat output you'd get from dry wood, though. Maybe 20% more, but that's better than paying the oil man any day.

Another thing is that this was an extreme example of what will work. 60% MCdb is sopping wet, not just damp. Get that wind blowing on that stuff for about a week or two and it will be down to about 40%. Much easier to deal with than 60%. Or bring it inside by the stove for three or four days and it will get there much quicker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.