the only reason you only burn 3 cords is because you live in a subdivision with all them houses around you to block the wind nate. besides your house aint to big either.
fossil said:But if you want to have some idea of the energy you released from combustion of the wood (which is what's really important to us, I think), then knowing only the volume isn't going to really tell you squat.
Battenkiller said:fossil said:But if you want to have some idea of the energy you released from combustion of the wood (which is what's really important to us, I think), then knowing only the volume isn't going to really tell you squat.
First thing then, all those BTU tables for various species/cord need to be tossed, eh? :-/
fossil said:They would serve the purpose at hand quite well with a simple conversion to weight, because we can easily measure that. Since we don't have an easy means of determining volume to any degree of accuracy, I guess we have to start with weight and MC, and go from there.
BrotherBart said:You talk about an endeavor with a lot of Kentucky windage, wood burning is it.
Yeah. I am sure those two guys in the cornfield were in my company.fossil said:Dang, I'd swear that's the same guy that tried to teach us to shoot the M-1 in Navy Boot Camp in 1969. :roll:
WoodNStuff said:Or invest in a large water tank. Add a specific volume of water. Lift your cord of wood with a hoist, lower into tank, and measure displacement. Do this for each of your cords. Now you'll know the exact volume of wood in each cord...
fossil said:WoodNStuff said:Or invest in a large water tank. Add a specific volume of water. Lift your cord of wood with a hoist, lower into tank, and measure displacement. Do this for each of your cords. Now you'll know the exact volume of wood in each cord...
Well, actually, no you won't, unless you somehow force the wood to completely submerge...otherwise it's gonna float. You'll know the weight of the wood, if you catch and weigh the displaced water (the two weights will be the same), but you'll only be able to measure (from the volume of water displaced) the volume of the wood beneath the waterline when the wood comes to rest floating in the water. If you were to somehow forcibly submerge the wood completely into the water and then measure the volume of the displaced water, you'd know the volume of the wood. Rick
BrotherBart said:I am always fascinated by a few of our folks that try to make a science out of burning pieces of very large weeds in a metal box to heat their caves. :lol: You talk about an endeavor with a lot of Kentucky windage, wood burning is it.
fossil said:Well, actually, no you won't, unless you somehow force the wood to completely submerge...otherwise it's gonna float