NIELS Review

  • 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.

FPX Dude

Feeling the Heat
Oct 4, 2007
481
Sacramento, CA
https://northidahoenergylogs.com/ I got some of these, here's what I found. They take a bit to get going, then burn incredibly hot. If they split apart or if I put more than 1 log, it's almost like a runaway and I don't like that. I've tried different orientations but find that on a cold start or a reload, I put some splits first, then put the log E-W at the back, then one in front of that and one over the top in the gap. They kinda expand as they burn, so this helps keep the chunks together when they come apart. Not sure if bio bricks do that, but these do. I get 5-6 hours of useful heat from that, I measure it as when the fan turns on to when it turns off, and still have coals. Overall, I really like them and will get more later this summer.
 
I burned a few at a time in the F400. Good heat for the dead of winter.
 
I thought their density was less than real wood, suggesting one gets less BTUs out per volume than real wood.

But if one doesn't load the stove full,.that is not a concern.

I've indeed seen others note that control is important and a bit difficult sometimes, especially for larger loads.
 
Their density is more than most wood except for ironwood. I recall them saying they don't float but I never tried this. When I burned them the stove behaved similar to burning a good hardwood like locust, but with a smaller load.
 
Red oak at 20% moisture content is about 42 lbs/ft^3 (freaking units...)

Sawdust logs have about 30 lbs/ft^3.

Granted, the moisture content of the dust logs is 8% or so, making a difference in heat output.
They are, though, less dense than (even) red oak.
 
Not all sawdust logs are compressed the same amount.
 
Oh, and Niels says it's 8600 BTU per lbs - I don't know what their volume is though

says that's the same for dry oak, and less than (dry) resinous soft wood at 9,050 Btu per lbs (at obviously a higher volume per pound).

I agree not all are compressed at the same amount. NIELS seems to be a good one, and they give numbers which should be applauded. Presumably the others do not give numbers because they are less.

I have to say that the data I can find online do not support sawdust logs being higher density than (my...) wood.
Northern or Westcoast softwoods may be different - though resinous softwoods were (above, University of Missouri) claimed tohave a higher BTU content per pound, so even if the lower density is there, the BTUs per volume may not differ that much - this latter finding was a surprise to me as it seems to go against common knowledge.


Bottomline, it may simply be a wash, given the consistent numbers of a (brand of) logs versus the varying (species, quality) of firewood...
(As always)
 
NEILs and Home Fire Prest-Logs are compacted at a much higher pressure than the average sawdust log. They are significantly more dense. They are not made with the traditional ram piston used in cheaper sawdust logs. The sawdust is from resinous softwoods bound under such great pressure and temperature that the lignins actually fuse.
 
Do you remember their dimensions?
 
The dimensions are in the Resources files for each product under Fuel Facts. Homefire's website claims 3x the energy density of oak (didn't say which variety). I'm a bit skeptical of that claim but they don't show how that calculation was arrived at. Maybe send them an email for further explanation.

 
Bio bricks,Canawick bricks and homeprest logs are good but not as good as the NEIL'S.