19/20 is looking hot

[FaithfulWoodsman]

Got this red oak to start for winter 19/20. Came from the neighbor of a landscape client. Got permission to get what AEP has cut down. Another cord of red oak left and 1.5 cords of shagbark hickory there too. Plus some ash. Looking to build a relationship with him as there are cords and cords and cords of down or dying ash, beech, hickory and oak in the woods. Maybe I can get permission to take down stuff once he gets to know me and how I'll take care of his place. Glad to be finally getting back to the saws and woods.

 

[Tar12]

Got this red oak to start for winter 19/20. Came from the neighbor of a landscape client. Got permission to get what AEP has cut down. Another cord of red oak left and 1.5 cords of shagbark hickory there too. Plus some ash. Looking to build a relationship with him as there are cords and cords and cords of down or dying ash, beech, hickory and oak in the woods. Maybe I can get permission to take down stuff once he gets to know me and how I'll take care of his place. Glad to be finally getting back to the saws and woods. View attachment 192734 View attachment 192741

Nice! I am fortunate to have a logging buddy thats my good friend. He hooks me up with all kinds of wood. Hopefully you can get something going!

 

[bfast250]

Those splits look huge. I dont think I have seen any that big on this site. I admit I am a newbie so please school me...will those really dry and burn nice in 3 years?

 

[FaithfulWoodsman]

.will those really dry and burn nice in 3 years?

Hahaha..........Maybe if I had a boiler. No it was about a 35" tree, so only way I can heave em into the truck is to quarter them to around 50-75lbs. This is my staging area for when it's to mushy to drive on the lawn back to the stacks. Had it been frozen I would have taken em down hill for processing. Debating on whether or not to split em up there now or wait to take em down as soon the ground freezes. Heavier now, but more bending and tossing if split.

 

[Tar12]

I put chunks that big and bigger in my boiler..I don't miss that...lol

 

[Tar12]

It unthawed here big time and put the brakes getting any splitting done and getting into those red oak tops laying in the field. I am praying for another freeze before they push them up in a pile!

 

[FaithfulWoodsman]

Here, here. I'm a summer guy, love to fish. But dang it needs to get cold. I cant any work done with all this 50° and rain.

 

[Tar12]

Just one more freeze...lol The rest of the tops are in a wide open woods with easy access...then its on to gill and crappie fishing followed by some serious cat fishing...

 

[heavy hammer]

Nice score will feel great in a few years, I hear you about this weather been crazy. Teens one day sixty three days later hard to get anything done outside.

 

[xman23]

I love huge splits. And a few smaller ones. I would take 1/3 off each of them. And half of some others.

 

[FaithfulWoodsman]

I love huge splits.

Haha.....Not me. These will be split very small soon. I like a random large peice, usually flatter to lay on top, but most I like no bigger than 4x4. Most are split a little small than that. Helps oak dry faster and better.

 

[HisTreeNut]

Nice score there...! ! !

 

[Tar12]

Haha.....Not me. These will be split very small soon. I like a random large peice, usually flatter to lay on top, but most I like no bigger than 4x4. Most are split a little small than that. Helps oak dry faster and better.

Same here...on bigger rounds when splitting I will try real hard to keep the splits squared up...then I can pack that stove real tight on those bitter cold nights...

 

[Hasufel]

Haha.....Not me. These will be split very small soon. I like a random large peice, usually flatter to lay on top, but most I like no bigger than 4x4. Most are split a little small than that. Helps oak dry faster and better.

Doing the same here. Have lots of red and white oak that I'd like to be able to burn within the next 2-3 years. Big splits just seem to take forever to dry.

 

[FaithfulWoodsman]

Big splits just seem to take forever to dry.

Yep. I have checked some 3x3 splits from a white oak I c/s/s last fall and it's on tap to be used next year if I must. Hope to wait though. Granted it was on the ground for a couple years, but at 36" it was still squeezing water out when split.

 

[Jay106n]

Haha.....Not me. These will be split very small soon. I like a random large peice, usually flatter to lay on top, but most I like no bigger than 4x4. Most are split a little small than that. Helps oak dry faster and better.

Especially with red oak. Those would take 5 years at that size lol

 

[ElmBurner]

The rule of thumb is that wood dries 10 times faster "along" the grain than "through" or "across" the grain. So, taking a chunk of wood that is 10" square and 20" long and splitting that in half would make it dry just as fast as if you cut 2 inches off the length. Which is to say...it doesn't make much difference. Of course, it is a lot easier to stack smaller splits that are 20" long, so that is what people do.

Smaller splits also make the fire burn faster/hotter, which can be a bad thing. A stove full of small locust or oak splits can quickly get much too hot.

I try to keep some of my splits extra big like this for overnight burns. I have a lot of basswood and it tends to burn very hot anyway, so reducing the surface area for flames by keeping the pieces big helps to moderate the heat output, as well. It's a good way to get the maximum amount of heat into my house instead of up through the chimney.

 

[FaithfulWoodsman]

The rule of thumb is that wood dries 10 times faster "along" the grain than "through" or "across" the grain. So, taking a chunk of wood that is 10" square and 20" long and splitting that in half would make it dry just as fast as if you cut 2 inches off the length. Which is to say...it doesn't make much difference. Of course, it is a lot easier to stack smaller splits that are 20" long, so that is what people do.

Have to disagree. I've heard this said, but never seen any empirical data to back this up, especially considering moisture locked farthest away from the fibral tubes opened at the end. There's no doubt that moisture leaves from the end more readily, but I'm not sure it's 10x or that the same rate of acceleration continues deep inside the split. Reducing a 20" peice by 2" decreases its dry time by 1/10. 4"=2/10 on a 10x10x16. Splitting the original peice twice in half we get a 5x5x20. In my experience the larger split (a diff of 1100" cubed) takes far longer to dry. By the "rule", a 1" square by 20" split should dry the same as a 10" square by 2" split. I have saved many similar sized splits for kindling and the thinner split always seem to dry much faster. Perhaps there is a curve accelerating drying the closer exposed surfaces are to the center of the split. ??
As far as burning goes, consumption should be greatly contolled by rate of air, at least in air tight stoves. Space between splits increases rate of ignition and allows for quicker offgassing.

 

[ElmBurner]

Have to disagree. I've heard this said, but never seen any empirical data to back this up, especially considering moisture locked farthest away from the fibral tubes opened at the end. There's no doubt that moisture leaves from the end more readily, but I'm not sure it's 10x or that the same rate of acceleration continues deep inside the split. Reducing a 20" peice by 2" decreases its dry time by 1/10. 4"=2/10 on a 10x10x16. Splitting the original peice twice in half we get a 5x5x20. In my experience the larger split (a diff of 1100" cubed) takes far longer to dry. By the "rule", a 1" square by 20" split should dry the same as a 10" square by 2" split. I have saved many similar sized splits for kindling and the thinner split always seem to dry much faster. Perhaps there is a curve accelerating drying the closer exposed surfaces are to the center of the split. ??
As far as burning goes, consumption should be greatly contolled by rate of air, at least in air tight stoves. Space between splits increases rate of ignition and allows for quicker offgassing.

(broken link removed to http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/5722/Importance_Thick_ocr.pdf;jsessionid=D4B94CBB7DB1ED4279213E3F00E1BE02?sequence=1)

This was done for kiln drying of red oak. Maybe the model changes when you are just using room temp / ambient conditions...

That said...I am just repeating what I have read. I haven't tried to experimentally determine this, but my anecdotal evidence says that large chunks of wood dry just fine in 1 year, which would imply that splitting them down isn't necessary for the time-frames that most wood burners work with.

 

[Hasufel]

(broken link removed to http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/5722/Importance_Thick_ocr.pdf;jsessionid=D4B94CBB7DB1ED4279213E3F00E1BE02?sequence=1)

This was done for kiln drying of red oak. Maybe the model changes when you are just using room temp / ambient conditions...

That said...I am just repeating what I have read. I haven't tried to experimentally determine this, but my anecdotal evidence says that large chunks of wood dry just fine in 1 year, which would imply that splitting them down isn't necessary for the time-frames that most wood burners work with.

Interesting read. Thanks, I had been looking for something like that! From this study it looks like drying time for red oak is proportional to the thickness raised to the power 1.52...so if all other conditions are the same, a 2" thick piece of red oak would take 2.9 times longer to dry than a piece 1" thick. Something 3" thick would take 5.3 times longer, etc. That's specific to red oak, however, so other species might exhibit different behavior. But at least it validates my efforts to split oak into thinner pieces to make it burnable no later than 2019.

As for applicability to firewood (and the discussion above), I would offer a small note of caution. This study focused on lumber so presumably it covered only wood with dimensions width > thickness and length > > thickness. In the case of firewood, width might be closer to thickness and length would still be longer than thickness but not significantly so. Therefore, width and length could still affect drying time for firewood, even if their effect on lumber is negligible. So this doesn't entirely answer the question, but at least it serves as a good guide.

Edit: Just noticed that my "much greater than" symbol (> >) got converted to a emoticon. I added an extra space so hopefully it's fixed now.

 

[FaithfulWoodsman]

drying time for red oak is proportional to the thickness raised to the power 1.52.

Nice analysis hasufel. The thickness coefficient of 1.52 doesn't really stay constant, especially in higher initial moisture content, but it's pretty close. Did you solve for the exponent by setting up an equation using 1" board data from the chart with logarithm? One thing the study does do is validate the process of splitting thinner to accelerate drying as you stated. Deff be splitting small and maybe even work at making the width/thickness a 2:1 ratio.

 

[ElmBurner]

Nice analysis hasufel. The thickness coefficient of 1.52 doesn't really stay constant, especially in higher initial moisture content, but it's pretty close. Did you solve for the exponent by setting up an equation using 1" board data from the chart with logarithm? One thing the study does do is validate the process of splitting thinner to accelerate drying as you stated. Deff be splitting small and maybe even work at making the width/thickness a 2:1 ratio.

Yes, but you also need to consider the time frame. If a thicker split would dry in the time-frame you require, why go to the extra labor of breaking it down further?

As I mentioned above, I have been well served by the rule of thumb that seems common here. 2 years for oak, 1 year for everything else. I am splitting anything that is wider than my hand span (maybe 8") and leave things that are smaller than that. I've had no issue with hitting the 20% MC as required for a good burn.

For a first year wood burner or otherwise having an immediate need for dry fire-wood, then splitting down to a small size makes more sense. But it is a lot of labor. I would argue that you would be better served by cutting standing dead trees or burning pallets or compressed logs and saving the wood for another year though, unless you value your time at $0/hr.

 

[SeanBB]

Something which will make a difference (maybe small?) is that lumber has been sawn down the length which will open up fibral tubes which should dry quicker. Firewood is split which generally leaves the tubes intact.

 

[Hasufel]

Nice analysis hasufel. The thickness coefficient of 1.52 doesn't really stay constant, especially in higher initial moisture content, but it's pretty close. Did you solve for the exponent by setting up an equation using 1" board data from the chart with logarithm? One thing the study does do is validate the process of splitting thinner to accelerate drying as you stated. Deff be splitting small and maybe even work at making the width/thickness a 2:1 ratio.

I just went with the equation they used for drying time:

If you're comparing thicknesses of wood then the only variable is x, the thickness in inches; b (which is a function of the vapor pressure of water) and the W variables (which are a function of the moisture content of the wood) would be the same in an "apples-to-apples" comparison. The red oak thickness coefficient of 1.52 is empirical and it's not clear how they calculated it or whether it's truly constant.

 

[Sodbuster]

It unthawed here big time and put the brakes getting any splitting done and getting into those red oak tops laying in the field. I am praying for another freeze before they push them up in a pile!

Same here, it's so wet, it is making it hard to get my winter cutting done. 4 wheel drive tractor will get the wood out, but the mess I'd make would be ridiculous. Wood covered in mud is no fun to cut.