Separate names with a comma.
Posted By Joey Jones,
Sep 28, 2008 at 6:26 PM
I'd believe it if it was a Live Oak
Gee happy someone else made up an approximate geometry for a tree 3" in diameter and did the math. Given joyej gave us the 3' diameter, seems the calculation has merit for the subject tree. But, it is also clear that a tree with a 6' diameter could make the big 8 cord delivery. Using ISee.. model this tree would have 565 cubic feet in just the trunk. I can believe it would have about that much more in limbs. Yes, 8 cords in a real tree, BIG real tree.
i have seen them 54in across was in the ball park of 8 cords
I believe the 8 cord figure.
Once cut a sycamore 42" across the stump and 132' to the end of the highest branch.No limb logs ,all trunk logs. Took 2 tri-axels to haul it to the mill and there was still a few logs left at the landing. Most tri-axels average 7 cord.
8 cords in one tree was hard for me to swallow until i saw the second tree myzamboni posted. if that tree at 3 feet in diameter was anywhere near 8 cord the second oak has to be 14 or more cords. hell from the base of the tree you could carve 3 or so 4'x4'x8' blocks or a solid cord. now all you'd need is a stove big enough to burn it.
Actually, I'm not intent on proving anyone wrong. In fact, two of those trees would heat my house all season plus my DHW all off-season.
But if the oaks in Maine are the same as the rest of the NorthEast, then 80' is the TYPICAL max height. And they don't typically run a trunk the entire 80'.
Consider this . . . most Tri-ax loads run approximatly 6 full cord. Thats cut and stacked cord not vulumetrically perfect cord.
And lastly, I'm no logger. Ask any man - or woman, I guess - that makes his or her living cutting wood in the NE about getting 8 cord from one oak tree. Just prepare yourself for the response :lol:
If they cut and stacked this oak and it came to 6 * 20 * 8, or some derivation thereof, then it's 8 cord. Screw the calculations!
You might - and might not - find this interesting :
http://www.holdenmaine.com/conservation commission/Big Tree Contest Entries for Website.pdf
Note this prize winning Red Oak from Maine at 150" . . . unless my math is bad thats a radius of 2'. I used 1.5 in my half-assed calculation 'cause the 3' diameter was given.
How did Rodney King put it? . . . "Can't we all just get along?"
I didn't mean to stir up a hornets nest here.I did speak with the fellow who passed this information on to me again today and told him there were a bunch of doubters about the 8 cords of wood statement. The person that relayed this information is a real estate broker and said the tree was in fact greater than 3' in diameter and closer to 4' and that the lower limbs were in excess of 2'. He did say the arborist that was called in needed a special chain saw of extreme length to take down the trunk. The arborist further stated that the tree was at least 300 years old. My real estate friend says there are still several live oaks of a similar size out in front of the house and he did promise to take a photo. I will be glad to post the photo when I receive it. These trees are in Cape Elizabeth Maine and apparently did escape the great Portland fire of 1866, which destroyed much of the city.
I do appologize for misquoting originally the diameter of the trunk and the size of the lower limbs. Those were his orginal statements said in conversation, but when I told him yesterday that many smart people on this forum doubted the efficasy of his state he did go by the house again today and got some closer numbers. He just lives down the road from the house with the big oaks.
All I can say is I wish I have a couple of those trees on my land
I can tell you right now for a fact that there are MANY red oaks on my mother's property that have WELL over a 2' radius.
Houlton doesn't know jack about trees......that's potatoe country up there. ;-)
The largest registered red oak in Maine posesses a 265" circumference, stands 84' tall and has a crown spread of 71'.
That's a lot of wood my friends.
LOL, and I don't know Jack about Maine . . . other than a honeymoon over two decades ago in Southeast herbor and a ferry ride over to PEI.
So apparently Maine Red Oaks are different from the rest of the NE. So can someone get me a lead on say 10 acres of these Brutes??
They must have cut and stacked every shred including leaf stems and calculated in the cutting teeth losses of sawdust.
Even though New England has very very very few old growth trees still standing there are some. Not all are documented.
Dont forget that a solid tree is not calculated in to 128 cubic foot cords as that is 128 cut, split, and stacked and contains air space. I would venture to say that is about 1/3 of the space so you really need to figure the tree cord at about 85 cubic foot.
On top of that I have cut some big gnarly oaks that i took 10 - 12 pickup loads from. and that is about 5 - 6 cords. so 8 is not out of the realm of possibility,.
A rick is considered a "Face Cord" or a 1/3rd Cord... Measuring Firewood will make you sick.. If everyone bucked there wood to 18", then it would be much more consistant.
There is an Amish house next door and another about a half mile down the road... Both have Oaks that would contain at least this amount.. Trees are still alive, but have sections that are dead. After a few hundred years. It happens...... Those Oaks have to be 8-10 Across. Or 25-32 in Diameter...
That's a huge tree, this ash was 48"+DBH along with large limbs, it was right around 5 cords all said and done. My old man in the one shot is 6' for reference.
Maybe I'm just lucky where I grew up, but I don't doubt this. I've seen some enormous trees and I've seen plenty of trees around me that yielded 2.5-3 cords - and those were from within the past century.
You get into the truly enormous oaks that are a few centuries old, you take the trunk, you take the big limbs, and you account for airspace in the cords........yeah, 8 cords one tree works for me.
I came across this big ass oak in my work and wondered how many cords this one tree could produce
A guy I was cutting with today said he got a 6' diameter maple last year from a scrounge and it provided him with 10 cords of wood. He showed me pics of these sections that the tree company cut up. They were 18" by 6 feet and they were huge. He had to saw them in half and then put a single piece at a time in his truck. While I would love to get 10 cords, I think I would have been crying dealing with something like that.
All I've got to say to the doubters is if you don't believe a tree can have 8 cords you've not cut any big trees up. Last week I cut up a 6 cord 42" dia oak. Took me 3 trailers 7'x16 piled 3-4' high in the middle around 10-11,000 pounds each load. It's pretty simple to figure out the cubic footage of a cord of wood.
I have a white oak in my yard coming down this fall after the soybeans come off so I can drop it in the field, that I suspect is over 6 cord.
Are those full cows or face cows?
If it isn't hollow. All the bigger white oaks around here generally are.
I've seen some mighty big ones. 8 cord probably..
the truth is stranger than fiction.
Kudos to whoever noted that volume is a function of the SQUARE of the diameter.
Bad math alert for whoever suggest that 128 cubic feet of wood is a cord. 80 cubic feet is more like it.
128 cu feet is the well established volume of a cord of wood once c/s/s. Are you talking about when still in log form?
yep, someone in this very thread years ago 11 days from now made the statement that a cord is 128 cu ft of wood not stacked wood.
As long as we are pointing fingers, it is the square of the radius not diameter.
I read somewhere when they do trials on wood burning to figure its BTU they use 86 cubic ft for volumn figure.
Using something other then cord wood when using cord wood they use 128. YMMV