Here is an interesting article about the moisture content of wood and EPA stoves.
http://www.woodheat.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=73
http://www.woodheat.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=73
pinewoodburner said:Here is an interesting article about the moisture content of wood and EPA stoves.
http://www.woodheat.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=73
Really dry wood releases all its gases in a short time causing more smoke is what they were talking about.DanCorcoran said:"I disagree with the article about dry wood creating smoke, "
The article used the wrong wording...it should have said that the wood releases gasses, which burn. Solid wood does not burn: the gasses released by hot wood burn (whether dry or green). Green wood produces much more smoke (visible particulate matter) than dry wood.
As to wood being too dry? It depends on the stove. My Shelburne manual specifically states that kiln-dried lumber is an inappropriate fuel which can overfire the stove and void the warranty. Your stove may be different.
oldspark said:... numerous articles talk about wood can be too dry...
"New scientific research shows that much of what we "knew" was wrong - and even dangerous"
Battenkiller said:Why is it that many folks - particularly Americans - have a hard time believing what the scientists are telling us? I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say global warming is a myth just because we still see sub-zero days. They (the scientists) even had to stop calling it "global warming" (which is what it really is) and start calling it "climate change" in order to get the message across. And where is that message 5 years after "An Inconvenient Truth" brought it to mass recognition? Same place the creosote issue is 33 years after some dorky science geeks took it upon themselves to actually investigate it. Were they the first "Myth Busters", perhaps? Maybe I should submit it to the show, would anyone believe it then?
If you think deeply into it, there are very clear explanations for every observation that the responders have said here, but none of them can overturn the scientific reasoning as to why they are so. This is not the only study of this sort, just the first (that I know of). I have seen at least six studies that have touched on this issue, and all of them came to the identical conclusions. Seasoned hardwood creates the most creosote per pound of dry wood fiber burned. Ironically, green pine makes the least creosote per pound of wood fiber. Wrap your heads around that concept for a bit.
The new technologies are far better equipped to handle the excessive outgassing (smoking) that putting super-dry wood on a hot coal bed will create, but nothing new in the way wood actually burns has come up since God created the first tree... and the first lightning bolt to ignite it with. There are limits to what these technologies can do. Overcome the available air supply and you have a smoking mess. Overcome the excessive smoke with air and you have a dangerous runaway stove on your hands. Modern stoves work best and at their peak overall efficiency with wood that has a water content between 16% and 20% by weight (19% MC and 25% MC on a moisture meter). Ignore this by trying to get your wood as dry as humanely possible at your own peril.
Battenkiller said:Why is it that many folks - particularly Americans - have a hard time believing what the scientists are telling us? I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say global warming is a myth just because we still see sub-zero days. They (the scientists) even had to stop calling it "global warming" (which is what it really is) and start calling it "climate change" in order to get the message across. And where is that message 5 years after "An Inconvenient Truth" brought it to mass recognition? Same place the creosote issue is 33 years after some dorky science geeks took it upon themselves to actually investigate it. Were they the first "Myth Busters", perhaps? Maybe I should submit it to the show, would anyone believe it then?
If you think deeply into it, there are very clear explanations for every observation that the responders have said here, but none of them can overturn the scientific reasoning as to why they are so. This is not the only study of this sort, just the first (that I know of). I have seen at least six studies that have touched on this issue, and all of them came to the identical conclusions. Seasoned hardwood creates the most creosote per pound of dry wood fiber burned. Ironically, green pine makes the least creosote per pound of wood fiber. Wrap your heads around that concept for a bit.
The new technologies are far better equipped to handle the excessive outgassing (smoking) that putting super-dry wood on a hot coal bed will create, but nothing new in the way wood actually burns has come up since God created the first tree... and the first lightning bolt to ignite it with. There are limits to what these technologies can do. Overcome the available air supply and you have a smoking mess. Overcome the excessive smoke with air and you have a dangerous runaway stove on your hands. Modern stoves work best and at their peak overall efficiency with wood that has a water content between 16% and 20% by weight (19% MC and 25% MC on a moisture meter). Ignore this by trying to get your wood as dry as humanely possible at your own peril.
The right band of firewood moisture is between 15 and 20%. When you get much over 20% you start to see symptoms of sluggish ignition and the inability to turn down the air without extinguishing the flames.
BrowningBAR said:Your numbers seem a bit high.
Battenkiller said:BrowningBAR said:Your numbers seem a bit high.
???
What... 1% higher on the low range? I am just using the numbers that the EPA testing protocol demands (16-20% wet-basis). No one said wood 1% lower will cause your stove to become either a smoke dragon or a runaway.
Modern stoves work best and at their peak overall efficiency with wood that has a water content between 16% and 20% by weight (19% MC and 25% MC on a moisture meter)
BrowningBAR said:The original article mentions that 15-20% is "the right band of firewood moisture". Which reads to me like the moisture count on a moisture meter. It mentions that "when you get much over 20% you start to see symptoms of sluggish ignition and the inability to turn down the air without extinguishing the flames." The numbers you listed are well into the 20+% unless I am reading it incorrectly.
Battenkiller said:BrowningBAR said:The original article mentions that 15-20% is "the right band of firewood moisture". Which reads to me like the moisture count on a moisture meter. It mentions that "when you get much over 20% you start to see symptoms of sluggish ignition and the inability to turn down the air without extinguishing the flames." The numbers you listed are well into the 20+% unless I am reading it incorrectly.
The original article began with this:
"Properly seasoned firewood still has a fair amount of water in it, say 15 to 20 percent of its weight."
Moisture meters do not, and never have, given results in percent water by weight. They give results in total water in the wood divided by total weight of pure wood fiber contained within. I have tried my best to distinguish between these two methods of expressing moisture content, there has even been a Wiki entry regarding this. I cannot make everyone understand what seems to me to be a very simple concept merely by repeating it over and over. If you actually take the time to read both the EPA and the Canadian test procedures, you will see that both methods are used to express the required moisture content of the test fuel, but they will specify whether they mean "wet-basis" or "dry-basis" each time, and each time the correct (but different) numbers are used. Again, the meter reads dry-basis and the percent water by weight is a wet-basis (sometimes referred to in the literature as "moist basis") expression. Same amount of water present in the wood, different numbers used to express it. There is no other way I know to explain this difference, feel free to continue to doubt it if you chose.
BrowningBAR said:Yeah. Sorry for asking questions. Won't happen again.