Large splits V small splits.

  • 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.
  • Hope everyone has a wonderful and warm Thanksgiving!
  • Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
Status
Not open for further replies.

guest5234

New Member
Hearth Supporter
I have been burning smallish splits burn down to coals after about an 90 mins and reloading with another 3 splits....today I had a good really hot bed of ash and coals and picked up a very large piece of oak and thought "sod it" and in it went and half filled my stove , it burned at a steady rate for 3 hours at a good steady rate and heat, not quite as hot as the smaller splits but it was so good not to have to reload....question please....am I in danger of creosote build up at burning at a lower temprature with one large split (stovepipe temp 300 to 350) or am I better burning smaller hotter fires with smaller splits at 400 - 450 f
 
USe mediums if you got them. But larger are best for overnight burns. I always try to burn a minimum of 3 splits. Three mediums fills the firebox about 3/4. Reload about every 5 hours.
 
Neil said:
I have been burning smallish splits burn down to coals after about an 90 mins and reloading with another 3 splits....today I had a good really hot bed of ash and coals and picked up a very large piece of oak and thought "sod it" and in it went and half filled my stove , it burned at a steady rate for 3 hours at a good steady rate and heat, not quite as hot as the smaller splits but it was so good not to have to reload....question please....am I in danger of creosote build up at burning at a lower temprature with one large split (stovepipe temp 300 to 350) or am I better burning smaller hotter fires with smaller splits at 400 - 450 f

Try putting a big piece on top of a couple of small ones and see if you can get a slightly hotter burn. Every stove is different, but I find there's a sort of sweet spot for the hottest burn in terms of how full I load my stove. Packed full, it doesn't do well, but it does need more than one or two pieces burning to really get going.

But depending on your stove and chimney, running a lot at 300-350 may not give you the creosote problems you think, especially if you run one of those good hot fires with the small splits once a day to clean things out a bit. Before you restrict yourself for fear of creosote, have a look up your chimney or pay a professional sweep to come in and see after you've done the big pieces for a month or so.

I burned lousy wood badly most of last winter and only rarely got my stove up as high as 400, and there was only very minimal creosote in the chimney when I had it cleaned this fall. You don't want to count on that being the case, but getting the chimney checked after a month or six weeks of burning like that will tell you whether your system can cope or not.
 
With my setup, I actually get less creosote with a stove full of larger splits burning at 350-400 degrees than a stove full of small splits at the same temperature.

I believe this is the case because I can run the air control more open with the bigger splits to get the same temperature.

The other benefit as you mentioned is the longer burn times. Which I too think help contribute to less creosote as the times when my chimney is the dirtiest as far as smoke is when I reload. During the secondary burn, exhaust gases are very clean.

My logic, less reloading means less creosote if the burn is clean. More air with the big splits means cleaner burn and also, longer secondary burn equals less creosote for the duration of your 24 hour burn cycle.

The key is do not let those big logs smolder. If you do, then all bets are off and you will accumulate creosote.

pen
 
With the wood I'v scrounged, I have a couple monster splits, or crotches, or gnarled wood I just can't split smaller.

But I do have a hatchet I can use to take nicely split wood, cracking it into something much smaller than a split, but larger than kindling. So when I sqeeze a monster gnarled log that takes up half my firebox, I can also stick a bunch of nubbins under it, and around it, and over it, and they keep the firebox 400-500 while the monster burns slowly.
 
With a big gnarley piece in there just keep it on top of coals and it will burn clean for a long time.
 
adrpga498 said:
I always try to burn a minimum of 3 splits.
I find two is best. Three burn faster and build up coals too fast.
 
stockdoct said:
With the wood I'v scrounged, I have a couple monster splits, or crotches, or gnarled wood I just can't split smaller.

But they yield easily to a chain saw.

Ken
 
After trying our usual larger splits when we got our new EPA stove I found myself re-spliting out in the snow. All in all smaller splits work out better for us seeing as my wife is a real heat merchant. For one thing smaller splits burn hot and help lock down any coaling up issues. If we want a longer burn we just take a few seconds to stick 'em together like half assed rounds...DONE!

Have to say it's time consuming splitting down like I do...but it's not hard work so I do it cause it works out better. But for those of you that require longer burn times larger splits/rounds as your best bet. If you burn for warmth ...the kind of warmth you can't afford in fossil fuels than smaller splits are the ticket, and that would be us.
 
savageactor7 said:
After trying our usual larger splits when we got our new EPA stove I found myself re-spliting out in the snow. All in all smaller splits work out better for us seeing as my wife is a real heat merchant. For one thing smaller splits burn hot and help lock down any coaling up issues. If we want a longer burn we just take a few seconds to stick 'em together like half assed rounds...DONE!

Have to say it's time consuming splitting down like I do...but it's not hard work so I do it cause it works out better. But for those of you that require longer burn times larger splits/rounds as your best bet. If you burn for warmth ...the kind of warmth you can't afford in fossil fuels than smaller splits are the ticket, and that would be us.


This is what im doing.its worth it for us also
 
As long as I lay a large split on a good coal bed, they seem to burn pretty cleanly. I do think I'll bust up more small splits next year though. Coming from using an old fire dragon, I've had a bit to learn about using an efficient new stove, small to mediums seem to work best overall, with a big chunker on a warmer day, when I don't quite need the full bore heat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.