Interesting moisture testing results--range of woods

  • 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.
fjord said:
Does anyone here ( besides Msr. WebMaster, know who Jay Sheldon is/was ? ) PM me for a full C.V. which you may (or not)receive.

You mean Jay Shelton? Never heard of him.
 

Attachments

  • Shelton-Book.jpg
    Shelton-Book.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 251
Battenkiller said:
fjord said:
Does anyone here ( besides Msr. WebMaster, know who Jay Sheldon is/was ? ) PM me for a full C.V. which you may (or not)receive.

You mean Jay Shelton? Never heard of him.

Funny, you don't look like Jay.....did. Some cute.

How about a review of the tome for the unwashed ? What's changed ?
 
Dennis- to answer where I concluded that moisture meters can't measure right in different species:
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr06.pdf
has a booklet called "Electric Moisture Meters For Wood" with a chart (Table 1) on page 4.
It shows for instance for 20% moisture, the resistance in red oak is 2.09 megohms but for 20% MC in
american elm is .48 megohms. A previous post in this thread says that the meters without species knowledge
are calibrated for douglas fir (also red oak by chance). So they don't know the real MC when stuck into
black ash or american elm which have only a quarter as many megohms of resistance at 20% MC.
HMM, that link don't work. Anyway ya can google for filename fplgtr06.pdf to get the booklet.
 
fjord said:
Funny, you don't look like Jay.....did. Some cute.

How about a review of the tome for the unwashed ? What's changed ?

Ha, ha! Geez, that's some puss, eh? Rare picture of me smiling. :lol:

I took it with my built-in computer camera and never really looked at it before I posted it. Musta taken that before I had my second cuppa. Good photo for scaring the kids on Halloween. :coolgrin:

The book is dated as far as the latest technology goes, but the science he did is still quite valid. Yes, they did understand all about secondary combustion back then, just that none of the makers cared much until the EPA cracked down on emissions. The book goes into considerable depth, but is definitely understandable by any layperson.... no physics required. I personally think it's way better than any of the modern books I've looked through. Most of the tables and graphs I've posted here were scanned from that book. All the correct formulas are there for just about every aspect of wood burning, from chimney design to moisture content calculation to fuel BTU content across a wide range of moisture contents. A thorough explanation of wood combustion theory is included, something that every burner should understand. Safety, stove design, fuel choice and preparation, efficiency testing, etc. are all covered in detail and in a way that is easy for anyone to understand.

There are some things that make you just scratch your head, but those were the Wild West days. You were expected to clean your own chimney, and to do it often. Clean burns were the goal, but folks didn't freak out about finding some creosote somewhere up the flue. Some heat went up the chimney and you just lost it and accepted it.

There are numerous pages describing dozens of great stoves.... every one of them now out of production due to EPA standards. Still, nice to look at and read about these (mostly) wonderful old stoves.

All in all, still the best book out there. No fluff, just good, concise explanations of some pretty complex and confusing phenomena. I'd recommend it to any new burners, and it can still be found (cheaply) through independent booksellers listing their inventories on Amazon.
 
Battenkiller said:
Carbon_Liberator said:
And the only reason that stuff is gray is because of the water dripping off the roof got that portion of the wood wet and it's been sitting there long enough that it allowed that gray (black) bacteria to grow on it... so the gray color for me means that it has gotten wetter, not drier.


Bingo.

Here is a photo of some bitternut hickory and red oak. It was delivered last December and stored outside for about two months, under a tarp to keep the snow off it. During sunny days there would be lots of moisture evaporating and re-condensing back onto the wood when it cooled off. This allowed microbial action to take place and for the ends to start graying in spots. Then I brought it inside to dry by the fire, where it proceeded to check like a bastard. I posted this pic last week and it drew a comment about not needing to overseason my wood like that.

Truth is, the wood was only inside for about a week when this photo was taken. After two weeks I took one of these pieces (#9 on the table below) and a couple more from outside (7&8) and did my infamous microwave moisture content test on it. It was still at 31% MC at the time of the test. The hickory from outside was at 41%, so the hickory in the photo was probably still at over 35% when the photo was taken. An oak split (#10) taken from wood in the same photo came in at 53% MC! Not hardly ready for prime time.
Batten, That is the most beautiful unseasoned wood I have ever seen!
 
i just used my harbor frieght moisture meter for the first time and was pretty suprised...white spruce that was bucked up in july, didnt split till about a month ago. Now its at 16%...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.