I read so much about Sugar Maple on this site and little about Norway. Where I live (Southeast PA) there is a TON of Norway Maple here!! It seems every couple houses in my area has a Norway Maple on it. I know its considered hard maple, but anyone know the BTUs of it? As good as Sugar? I scored some on CL and it sure is pretty heavy stuff so I would think the BTUs are good on it. Just cant find any good rock solid info on Norway Maple in comparison to Sugar Maple. Anyone know more about it?
Norway Maple
- Thread starter dannynelson77
- Start date
-
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
I've tried to find info on it also. Its not as good as sugar. I would say its a medium btu fuel. Does take at least a year to season if split small. Probably better than black walnut, not as good as hickory, oak, locust, apple, ash. Its good just not great.
I've read about the same BTU (26 - 27K) for Norway Maple as Sugar.
From what I've burned ( no sugar maple here) fairly comparable to red maple. I think it cuts and splits easier.
Burns pretty quick and I've never had any coals from it.
I used to cut Norways down in the woods when I come across them (seeds from street plantings blow a surprising distance away ). Now I leave them for firewood unless there are oaks under them. They grow fairly quick.
From what I've burned ( no sugar maple here) fairly comparable to red maple. I think it cuts and splits easier.
Burns pretty quick and I've never had any coals from it.
I used to cut Norways down in the woods when I come across them (seeds from street plantings blow a surprising distance away ). Now I leave them for firewood unless there are oaks under them. They grow fairly quick.
Danno77
Minister of Fire
It burns like Red Maple......soft Maple? But has same BTUs as Sugar? My confusion over this tree continues......
thewoodlands
Minister of Fire
dannynelson77 said:
Red Maple or Soft Maple around 18.7 & Sugar Maple 24.0 depending on which chart you look at.
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache...ml+firwood+btu+chart&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Zap
Yea I know what Red and Sugar are rated at. Cant find what Norway is rated at. I know its considered hard though and know the big difference between Red and Sugar on the BTU chart. Thats why I am confused when the above poster (billb3) said he thought it burned like Red Maple.
thewoodlands
Minister of Fire
No, it is considered "hard maple". I know that. Sugar and Norway are HARD. Silver and Red are SOFT.
Hard to find out info about this for fire wood but it is almost the same denseity as Sugar Maple, found this looking at a discussion about flooring.dannynelson77 said:
sksmass
Member
dannynelson77 said:
I don't think this is true. Check this thread for discussion of the conventional definitions behind the "hard" and "soft" maple definitions. Norway, in my book, is "soft maple." I burn it though. Burns fine. Splits nicely on the (rare) clean sections. Downside is that the open grown street trees you can scrounge are usually covered with branch knots and crotches making the splitting tougher.
Why in your book is it soft?
Info that I have found states its a hard wood and used for furniture unlike the Red and Silver maple which is very weak. Heavy density to it too unlike Silver and Red.
Info that I have found states its a hard wood and used for furniture unlike the Red and Silver maple which is very weak. Heavy density to it too unlike Silver and Red.
If you want to look at this link and scroll down to "hard maple"
http://www.lewislp.com/woodchar.asp
http://www.lewislp.com/woodchar.asp
sksmass
Member
oldspark said:
Yup, and this link contradicts that one:
http://www.badgerwood.com/desc/hmdesc.htm
I guess the terminology may be a regional thing.
Expalin to me how that contradicts the other list, it just does not list Norway Maple, no contradiction there just the absence of it, Norway Maple is a introduced species so it is not on a lot of lists including firewood. I found another site about flooring that say it is like Sugar Maple.sksmass said:
http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/trees/maplen.htm
I have some of both at home split. Just not seasoned yet. But man the Norway is MUCH heavier and harder than the Red maple. Not even close. Would really have no idea how that wood can be considered soft. But than again NOTHING out there actually states its soft other than what people think in their book. This thread just proves what little information is out there on Norway and the conflicting information on what people think the wood is.......or is not.
FINALLY
BTU chart that includes Norway.........yup right up there with Sugar....
http://www.xomba.com/characteristics_of_various_firewood
BTU chart that includes Norway.........yup right up there with Sugar....http://www.xomba.com/characteristics_of_various_firewood
sksmass
Member
I don't think this is worth an argument. 
I suspect the terminology has a lot to do with what region you are from. Just like midwesterners say "pop" and new englanders say "soda". They are talking about the same thing.
At the end of the day Norway maple is a member of the Acer genus, thus a maple by definition on which we all agree. Whether we choose to call it "hard" or "soft" makes no difference to how it burns and is basically a relative judgement. It is "hard" relative to silver and "soft" relative to sugar.
Regardless of what we call it, as far as I am concerned every Norway maple in america should be cut and burned as fast as possible. The tree is an invasive weed that drowns out our native hardwoods. If we value sugar maple for its BTUs and its delicious maple syrup we should select for sugar maple forests by culling all norways we see. I am on a mission to eliminate it from my land.
For those interested in ID'ing Norways and selecting them out of your forest land, the distinguishing features are:
1) tear a leaf from the branch at the petiole, you'll see a milky sap ooze from the stem. A sugar maple's sap will be much clearer, almost translucent
2) Norway leaves are broader than they are long. Sugar maples tend to be longer than they are broad and are more pointed/jagged looking.
They burn fine. So, heat your house and do the earth a favor at the same time -- cut and split a Norway today!
I suspect the terminology has a lot to do with what region you are from. Just like midwesterners say "pop" and new englanders say "soda". They are talking about the same thing. At the end of the day Norway maple is a member of the Acer genus, thus a maple by definition on which we all agree. Whether we choose to call it "hard" or "soft" makes no difference to how it burns and is basically a relative judgement. It is "hard" relative to silver and "soft" relative to sugar.
Regardless of what we call it, as far as I am concerned every Norway maple in america should be cut and burned as fast as possible. The tree is an invasive weed that drowns out our native hardwoods. If we value sugar maple for its BTUs and its delicious maple syrup we should select for sugar maple forests by culling all norways we see. I am on a mission to eliminate it from my land.
For those interested in ID'ing Norways and selecting them out of your forest land, the distinguishing features are:
1) tear a leaf from the branch at the petiole, you'll see a milky sap ooze from the stem. A sugar maple's sap will be much clearer, almost translucent
2) Norway leaves are broader than they are long. Sugar maples tend to be longer than they are broad and are more pointed/jagged looking.
They burn fine. So, heat your house and do the earth a favor at the same time -- cut and split a Norway today!
Interesting link Danny. I learned something from it:
"The gaseous component of wood accounts for over half of the available energy while the solid materials comprise the rest."
It reinforces the logic of an EPA stove extracting more btus than the old smoke dragons simply because it burns the gasses better.
"The gaseous component of wood accounts for over half of the available energy while the solid materials comprise the rest."
It reinforces the logic of an EPA stove extracting more btus than the old smoke dragons simply because it burns the gasses better.
Flatbedford
Minister of Fire
I have a Norway Maple at my house that grows like a weed. Every year it reaches out and tries to engulf my house. I go up on the roof, trim it back and even more suckers come the next year. the roots are probably under the foundation too. I'd love to drop the whole thing, but it about 8' from the house and 8 feet from the side of my road. It also has overhead wires through it. I have to save my money so I can get my tree guy over here and get rid of it.
I "scored" just over a cord of Norway Maple about a year ago. After a year c/s/s it still won't burn very well. Must have been full of water when it was cut. I agree that they all should be cut and burned.
I "scored" just over a cord of Norway Maple about a year ago. After a year c/s/s it still won't burn very well. Must have been full of water when it was cut. I agree that they all should be cut and burned.
No argument here, I am just reporting what I found in several places, it is hard maple no matter where you live and yes it is an intrusive tree.sksmass said:I don't think this is worth an argument.
At the end of the day Norway maple is a member of the Acer genus, thus a maple by definition on which we all agree. Whether we choose to call it "hard" or "soft" makes no difference to how it burns and is basically a relative judgement. It is "hard" relative to silver and "soft" relative to sugar.
Regardless of what we call it, as far as I am concerned every Norway maple in america should be cut and burned as fast as possible. The tree is an invasive weed that drowns out our native hardwoods. If we value sugar maple for its BTUs and its delicious maple syrup we should select for sugar maple forests by culling all norways we see. I am on a mission to eliminate it from my land.
For those interested in ID'ing Norways and selecting them out of your forest land, the distinguishing features are:
1) tear a leaf from the branch at the petiole, you'll see a milky sap ooze from the stem. A sugar maple's sap will be much clearer, almost translucent
2) Norway leaves are broader than they are long. Sugar maples tend to be longer than they are broad and are more pointed/jagged looking.
They burn fine. So, heat your house and do the earth a favor at the same time -- cut and split a Norway today!
- Status
Similar threads
