Moisture meter question?

[GeeWizMan]

I recently purchased a cheap moisture meter from harbor freight. I was thinking there would be a manual that would tell me what a desirable moisture content of wood should be but, no, nada, nothing. I did a search here and people mention using a moisture meter but I can't find anything that says something about the ideal % of water in firewood or is this a dumb question cause we just want the wood to be as dry as we can get it? Does anyone know what a good percent would be for moisture in the wood?

 

[Michael6268]

I believe 20% or less is good. Im sure others will chime in shortly.

 

[laynes69]

I've read 15% to 20%. You don't want wood too dry (Like Lumer) It can cause some serious situations. If you use it, make sure you split it open and check the center to get an accurate reading.

 

[sgcsalsero]

Is the moisture meter you picked up this ? http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=2757

 

[GeeWizMan]

Is the moisture meter you picked up this ? http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=2757

Yes, that is the one I got. What do you think of it?

 

[babalu87]

You need to take a sample split of the wood, cant just go stick it in a piece from the pile, have to split it to get a true reading.
20% is ideal from what I have heard, read.

 

[sgcsalsero]

Yeah, I picked up the same one for $20 (normally $30) before christmas to give it a try. The battery was crap so I put in a new one, tested a couple pieces and they seemed to be around 25 percent. I wish it was scaled a little different but what do you expect for twenty bucks. I was going to search on the forum to see if I could get any add'l input, interested in your results.

 

[Mo Heat]

Reading and my experience both tell me that below 20% is good, 15% is even better. Most wood dries to 20 - 25% fairly quickly (< 1 yr) as the water between and inside the wood cells is eliminated. The remaining water is "bound" within the cell walls themselves (a constituent of the wall) and is much slower to exit.

I've got one of those HF meters. I doubt they are well calibrated so I did a control test first thing using a fresh split for a baseline and sanity check. This device is also not exactly heavy duty so I use it as follows to maximize life expectancy.

Re-split a piece of wood to expose its middle for testing.
Work on a stable surface to prevent fumbling while tines are embedded in split.
Lightly press the tines in to create two little pilot holes at a 90* angle to split.
Push an ice pick into both pilot holes creating more depth and increasing tine contact surface.
Hold the whole thing very carefully (one fumble and that delicate sucker will be toast).
Press the 'High' button, get reading, press the 'Low' button.

Mo's Proposed Warning Label:
Do not poke tines into skin, eyes, or genitals.
Do not use hammer to set tines.
Do not use without battery.

 

[babalu87]

Good idea with the icepick

I would imagine me and my big meatbeaters arent doing that $25 tool much good trying to press through to the other side of the split to get a reading

 

[GeeWizMan]

Thanks for the info everyone. I used the recommendations from you guys (used a leather awl instead of ice pick) and tested a fresh split and found the moisture content to be about 27%. I guess I need to season the wood some more before burning. Thanks again.

George

 

[WarmGuy]

Do you get the same reading if you just gently push the tines in versus putting the tines in the holes made by the ice pick?

My guess is that when the tines are inserted further, you get a higher moisture content reading. Yes??

Which procedure is more accurate depends on how far the designers of the tool expected you to push it in. That is, if they expect you to just touch the tines to the wood, that's the method that would give the most accurate reading.

Am I off track here?

 

[Andre B.]

Do you get the same reading if you just gently push the tines in versus putting the tines in the holes made by the ice pick?

My guess is that when the tines are inserted further, you get a higher moisture content reading. Yes??

Which procedure is more accurate depends on how far the designers of the tool expected you to push it in. That is, if they expect you to just touch the tines to the wood, that's the method that would give the most accurate reading.

Am I off track here?

Better quality meters have optional probes with built in slide hammer to drive the pins in deep.
http://www.professionalequipment.com/delmhorst-hammer-probe-26-es/moisture-accessories/

After all the surface moisture does not matter and literally changes with the wind, it's what is inside that counts.

 

[jqgs214]

Its a $20 moisture meter, not much must had gone into the design at all. A good moisture meter , say one used on the hull of a boat for survey, cost 400+ up to 1k.

 

[Mo Heat]

Do you get the same reading if you just gently push the tines in versus putting the tines in the holes made by the ice pick?

My guess is that when the tines are inserted further, you get a higher moisture content reading. Yes??

Reads higher if pushed in farther. Trouble with my oak is, you can't push the tines in much at all, or you risk damaging the meter. I only poke the ice pick in about a millimeter, maybe a bit more. It makes a big difference. I also split the wood fresh and test on the freshly split surface.

Which procedure is more accurate depends on how far the designers of the tool expected you to push it in. That is, if they expect you to just touch the tines to the wood, that's the method that would give the most accurate reading.

Am I off track here?

Your guess is as good as mine. Sounds logical, but we're talking about a Harbor Freight tool in my case. Nuff said.