(broken image removed)
Thats roughly 1750 gallons of water.
No wonder it takes 3 years to dry out!
Thats roughly 1750 gallons of water.
No wonder it takes 3 years to dry out!
could this be true?
- Thread starter infinitymike
- 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. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
Amazing when you think about it.
Gotta draw in lots of water to get a few nutrients, convert it to sugars & various compounds ,
suck in come CO2 from the air, keep the carbon & give off O2.
Then " panic
" every time they hear a chain saw fire up. LOL 
Gotta draw in lots of water to get a few nutrients, convert it to sugars & various compounds ,
suck in come CO2 from the air, keep the carbon & give off O2.
Then " panic
" every time they hear a chain saw fire up. LOL 
A mature tree will also convert more CO2 to O2 than a big lawn grass area. I don't recall the amount of grass area, but it was surprising how much. Sort of validates what the bottle lid said.
Gasifier
Minister of Fire
That is amazing Mike. Hey, I remember that you had some Oak that was not seasoned last year. What kind of moisture content do you have on that stuff now? Do you have any that you know has been split and stacked outside for a full year now? And what the m.c. is?
A "full grown" (when do oaks stop growing) oak is a heck of a big tree.
Did you read that? 7 tons of water a day. Thats 1750 gallons. I think it would be raining under an oak tree! And I don't think I water my trees enough!
SmokeyCity
Feeling the Heat
right on - we could "cure" global warming and end droughts in deserts just by planting a few billion extra oak trees!
In fact we could actually increase the density of our atmosphere by using those oaks to convert all the carbon we are releasing from fossil fuels into oxygen.
A billion oak tress might be ambitious so how about we just with some thing simple like - letting our grass grow longer.
In fact we could actually increase the density of our atmosphere by using those oaks to convert all the carbon we are releasing from fossil fuels into oxygen.
A billion oak tress might be ambitious so how about we just with some thing simple like - letting our grass grow longer.
Amazing when you think about it.
Gotta draw in lots of water to get a few nutrients, convert it to sugars & various compounds ,
suck in come CO2 from the air, keep the carbon & give off O2.
Then " panic
I thought I saw a snapple cap that said one in four facts are false.
I've been looking all over the net to see if this is true or false and can't find anything to prove either way.
Anyway WE all know from first hand experience there is a helluva lot of water in the rounds. It's gotta go somewhere.
I've been looking all over the net to see if this is true or false and can't find anything to prove either way.
Anyway WE all know from first hand experience there is a helluva lot of water in the rounds. It's gotta go somewhere.
BravoWhiskey
New Member
Yeah, sure don't sound possible. 100 ft diameter, 40 inches rain per year is about 200,000 gallon, five hundred some odd gallon per day average with zero going to runoff or groundwater.
I suppose this suggestion was just tongue-in-cheek because it assumes that the trees are actually creating water from nothing, not just converting ground water (liquid) into a gas. There is no way to create 'new' water. The only water we have, or ever will have, is the same water that has been here from the beginning of time.
Also read a snapple cap that said it is impossible to lick the outside of your elbow. Without pause my oldest Son licked the outside of his elbow. I told him he is a freak!
Many here in the east lament the return of once "productive" farmland to new forest growth. My neighbor religiously brush hogs the open portions of his hundred or so acres (similar to my spread), and always whines about me letting much of mine grow back (ruined he says). I used to fret about the Black Locust rapidly taking over some three or four acres, but since I started burning wood again I'm certainly going to encourage it! My woods produce enough firewood just in downers, culls and thinning to save approx. $6 to $10 thousand a year in heating costs, with much more potential. Every 5 or 10 years I'm able to realize significant (to me) timber sales without hurting the health of the woodlot. Game abounds with deer, turkey, ruffed grouse, woodcock, snowshoe hare, and even some pheasants are sticking around these days. Plenty of predators too; coyotes, fishers, bobcats, the occasional bear, and even sometimes sightings of the cougar the DEC refuses to admit they released. All are welcome. My neighbor is always begging to hunt over on my side. For some reason pickin's are summat sparse over his way. The forest holds the water from running off and allows many springs throughout with an excellent artesian that supplies two households, as well as two ponds that hold trout when stocked. I'll be running geothermal from them at some point. The property is adjacent to a municipal watershed and so adds to a larger island of protected acreage. Hiking and ski trails throughout. Oh yes, modulating the local water cycle and fixing carbon from the atmosphere. Valueless? I think not.
Ehouse
Ehouse
I agree. Even as a wood burner, it's a shame to see all the downed oaks from Sandy. In fact people are talking about the atmospheric impact all these downed beauties will have.
But since they are down, I don't want them to go to waste. So let me scrounge 'em up and burn them.
Mmmm, which will only add to the atmospheric impact, less trees and more co2, uh oh.
But since they are down, I don't want them to go to waste. So let me scrounge 'em up and burn them.
Mmmm, which will only add to the atmospheric impact, less trees and more co2, uh oh.
maple1
Minister of Fire
I think it would actually decrease the atmospheric/environmental impact, if you take into account the fossil fuel burning it would displace.
SmokeyCity
Feeling the Heat
Somewhere I read a summary of a study that said properly burned firewood is actually carbon neutral. Don't understand how that can be but I would like to hope it's true. - but I just can't wrap my head around it.
There's an article over at wood heat. Org that explains it . It's worth going over there anyway,as they have some interesting articles besides that .
I have read about how much moisture trees put into the air but do not remember the numbers. For sure it is high. I've always told folks who gripe about the humidity in the air in the eastern half of the nation that it is because of all the green. Many are surprised to hear this but it is true. You can't have all that green without having the humidity to go with it.
I have no idea what that means. But it sure sounds scientific
We are also surrounded by water. Well, on 3 sides. It gets extremely humid part of the time but not always. Fortunately when a cold front passes it brings dry air too, at least for a day.
- Status
Similar threads
