Does unseasoned wood still burn ok?

[oldspark]

I've read posts here where the guy had trouble reaching 400º after several hours with seasoned wood. The answer has always been that the wood is not really seasoned, the only evidence being the reported quality of the burn.

I've yet to read that trouble out of someone burning in a pre-epa stove. It's always an epa-unit. Unless the door is cracked, a secondary air stove just doesn't let a rush of air in, they need draft to pull it in and it ain't happening unless that flue is hot. Kinda get's the operater in a catch 22.

Also, burning wet wood is a lot easier when it is split as small as you have pictured. Many are throwing in rounds and average sized splits that are wet.

pen

Here's the first then, wet wood dont behave that well in a pre EPA stove either, I have stated that fact many times on this forum. That comes from some 32 years or so with a pre EPA stove. BK never once said it was easy that I remember.

 

[pen]

Here's the first then, wet wood dont behave that well in a pre EPA stove either, I have stated that fact many times on this forum. That comes from some 32 years or so with a pre EPA stove. BK never once said it was easy that I remember.

No kidding.

But you have a fighting chance if it is split as small as BK has pictured.

If I HAD to burn unseasoned wood to keep warm this winter, I'd be asking for my old fisher back. W/ dry wood, I'd rather use the fisher as a boat anchor rather than give up my new stove.

Of course the old stoves burned dry wood better than wet. But I'll argue any day that you have a better chance at a hot burn out of wet wood with an old "airtight" unit than my modern stove.

pen

 

[Battenkiller]

Here's a sequence of the second and third additions. It was a few minutes after the last shot was taken that I went outside and recorded the second video segment.

Compare the back of the firebox in the top left shot with the initial startup photo. When I went down in the morning that day there was some soot buildup in the back corners from the night before. That burn was hickory and cherry that had been in my stove room all season long (bottom of the stacks), then was moved outside in April to season for another 9 months prior to bringing it back inside. The wet wood in the beginning didn't foul up the stove at all, it actually cleaned away the soot.

BTW this all occurred within a short time frame that you wouldn't even get a secondary burn in a modern stove, so that point is moot. Besides, what would fuel it? There's not a whiff of smoke in the box in any of these photos. With real dry wood there would be visible smoke. As well, you can already see blue flame starting to appear in the back of the box in the last photo - a sure sign of clean burning.

 

[tfdchief]

I’d rather use the fisher as a boat anchor

Poor Fisher, kept you warm all those years and then you say that :coolsmirk: :cheese:

People like to rationalize their practices, especially when they are poor ones. (like a smoker mentioning the 90 year old neighbor who still smokes a pack a day

This one got me too. Since I had my accident and the doc made me quit the cigs, and I am going absolutely crazy with the desire for a smoke (after 6 months already.....you would think it would go away) So I got my pipe back out for a pacifier. It helps! I know you smoke a pipe and cigs. How is it going for you?

Sorry to be off the topic. It will get back on I am sure

 

[oldspark]

Here's the first then, wet wood dont behave that well in a pre EPA stove either, I have stated that fact many times on this forum. That comes from some 32 years or so with a pre EPA stove. BK never once said it was easy that I remember.

No kidding.

But you have a fighting chance if it is split as small as BK has pictured.

If I HAD to burn unseasoned wood to keep warm this winter, I'd be asking for my old fisher back. W/ dry wood, I'd rather use the fisher as a boat anchor rather than give up my new stove.

Of course the old stoves burned dry wood better than wet. But I'll argue any day that you have a better chance at a hot burn out of wet wood with an old "airtight" unit than my modern stove.

pen

No arguement there much more air going through my Nashua than the Summit, I do believe a lot of people on this forum are under the impression dry wood is 15% or less and there is a point I will argue any day of the week.

 

[oldspark]

"I’d rather use the fisher as a boat anchor rather than give up my new stove."
That is sad, I could go back to my Nashua in a hearbeat, it took up way too room and I have become addicted to the glass door on the Summit, still dont think I am saving that much wood and the Nashua had more balls.

 

[Battenkiller]

Here's the first then, wet wood dont behave that well in a pre EPA stove either, I have stated that fact many times on this forum. That comes from some 32 years or so with a pre EPA stove. BK never once said it was easy that I remember.

No kidding.

But you have a fighting chance if it is split as small as BK has pictured.

If I HAD to burn unseasoned wood to keep warm this winter, I'd be asking for my old fisher back. W/ dry wood, I'd rather use the fisher as a boat anchor rather than give up my new stove.

Of course the old stoves burned dry wood better than wet. But I'll argue any day that you have a better chance at a hot burn out of wet wood with an old "airtight" unit than my modern stove.

Not real easy, but not all that difficult, either. Those small splits were just the beginning. And it took four careful additions to get the stove cranking nicely. It the end, I just dropped a bunch of normal size splits through the top door, ran the flue up to 650ºF, shut the bypass and the secondary just lit off like an oil burner. WHOOOOSHHH! Flue temps dropped and stabilized over the next several minutes, and stovetop temp went back up to about 700º and stayed that way for about an hour before beginning a slow, steady decline over the next several hours.

Now, Pen, if you were to sneak into my basement and switch out my stove with your 30, I wouldn't complain to anyone. But my stove isn't just some one-trick pony airtight, it actually gives a decent secondary burn. Getting that to light off in my stove is harder than burning wet wood in it, but once mastered it works quite well. As I mentioned elsewhere, my stove was tested at 63% overall efficiency in the updraft position, but it's way more efficient once that secondary lights off and you shut the primary air down. It was one of the best of its era. VC tried to improve it by adding a cat, but cat technology was in its infancy back then. I'd love to be able to add a cat to this baby, but the design of the stove won't allow you to just do that. It's a real heat meister for its size, that's for sure.

 

[Battenkiller]

My thoughts are not as deep as yours, I had to read it but you may be correct, the 50% figure might be over the top.
"When you add an unseasoned or wet piece of fuelwood to your fire, the water contained in the wood heats up and turns to steam, which mixes with the exhaust gases and extinguishes the secondary burn. Regardless of how sophisticated your baffle system is, this cuts your heat output by up to 50%, and results in cool, water-laden exhaust filled with unburned particles and exhaust gases. This wet, heavy, high-density smoke travels very slowly up the chimney, where it cools even further, condensing onto the walls of the flue and causing excessive creosote formation. So, when you burn unseasoned or wet wood, you dramatically DECREASE your heat output, while dramatically INCREASING the likelihood of chimney fires. "

Yeah, maybe someone can point out the "wet, heavy, high-density smoke" in my stove or coming out the stack, because I can't see any. %-P

You have to remember that there is about .54 pounds of extra water generated for every pound of wood fiber burned... right there inside the stove. It evolves quickly, too. As a matter of fact, the faster you burn, the faster you make it, and it will continue to be generated until every last molecule of hydrogen has been consumed and only charcoal remains. It's a product of hydrocarbon combustion, after all. Is is a different kind of water than the residual water in the wood? I don't believe so.

As far as smoke density, it is a well known fact that dry wood makes denser smoke than wet wood. Wet wood undergoes pyrolysis very slowly, so smoke evolution is retarded by comparison. Put a big load of kiln-dried mill ends on a hot bed of coals and see what I mean.

 

[pen]

"I’d rather use the fisher as a boat anchor rather than give up my new stove."
That is sad, I could go back to my Nashua in a hearbeat, it took up way too room and I have become addicted to the glass door on the Summit, still dont think I am saving that much wood and the Nashua had more balls.

I think it's sad that you are finding the Summit isn't as good as my Englander ;-P

Or, maybe your nashua was better than my fisher.

Who knows.

:lol:

At the end of the day though, any time we try to make apples to apples comparisons of burning while we all have different setups and different fuel is just as foolish as that summit / englander or fisher / nashua comparison.

pen

 

[Danno77]

this thread stinks to read. Not because of the content, but darnit BK, you got me scrolling side to side and I hate that. no more posting big pictures, lol!

Hopefully
if I make
this post
long enough
to send
this thread
into the next
page and
then it won't
even be an
issue anymore.

in summary, the wood was 15-18% and I was full of crap. Have a nice day, don't burn wet wood. In before the lock!

 

[pen]

LAST CALL!

Anything productive to say ? Or should we put this puppy to bed considering Dan answered his own question 3 pages ago :shut:

pen

 

[Battenkiller]

I'm good, man. I'm sure everybody else has had enough as well. ;-)