Moisture content of wood question.

[op_man1]

Sometimes we tend to want to do things "perfectly" and get obsessed with that when in reality "good enough" is what we should shoot for. thanks for putting perpective into this Battenkiller.

I have Silver Maple and Pine that has been seasonning for about 10 months that is at less than 20%, according to a cheap moisture meter. It also looks good to burn and I can assure you that it will be used this year. This is a case where waiting for two years would be useless.

 

[oldspark]

After cutting down a tree and splitting is about the only time I use the MM.

What species are you cutting? Bet you're getting a lot of "OL" readings on your LCD screen.

The vast majority of woods won't even register on a MM when freshly cut because they are way above 40% MC. Not only is 40% about the cutoff for most moisture meters, they are very inaccurate in that range. Better to wait until the wood has been sitting for six months to a year and the MC has dropped considerably.

The only time it would make sense is when the tree is dead.

 

[muncybob]

After cutting down a tree and splitting is about the only time I use the MM.

What species are you cutting?

I have mainly been cutting cherry, maple and ash. Based on what I have read here cherry and ash season fairly quickly so if after a fresh cut the mc is <35% I will put it into the "this season" pile if it's cut by Sept. otherwise it goes into the next year pile. So far this seems to have worked well as I cut a lot of cherry late last summer and was able to burn some of it in late winter/early spring this year. Have not burned any of the ash I have cut but was given a cord of it last summer and burned that in the winter just fine.

 

[muncybob]

After cutting down a tree and splitting is about the only time I use the MM.

What species are you cutting? Bet you're getting a lot of "OL" readings on your LCD screen.

The vast majority of woods won't even register on a MM when freshly cut because they are way above 40% MC. Not only is 40% about the cutoff for most moisture meters, they are very inaccurate in that range. Better to wait until the wood has been sitting for six months to a year and the MC has dropped considerably.

The only time it would make sense is when the tree is dead.

A lot of what I cut last year was already dead. Some of the cherry I cut was live and it read around 35% on my cheapo MM. I'm just using the meter a a guide, I'm sure for the cost it's not real accurate.

 

[oldspark]

I've got a cheapy also just to play around with but so far it has read what I expected the wood to be at so I am happy with it.

 

[Battenkiller]

I have mainly been cutting cherry, maple and ash. Based on what I have read here cherry and ash season fairly quickly so if after a fresh cut the mc is <35% I will put it into the "this season" pile if it's cut by Sept. otherwise it goes into the next year pile.

Ash and cherry are two woods where you just might get a reading on green wood. Black locust is another. Whatever works for you. It's so easy to see this as overly obsessive coming from the viewpoint of a long time burner. Plus, I never paid $4K for a new stove and liner, so I never worried that much about the equipment. If fact, I burned for almost 20 years in a freebie box stove that probably had more replacement steel plate in it than the original stove cost new. All I ever cared about was getting enough heat and not burn my family to death. It's successor, a fine condition Vermont Castings Vigilant, cost me all of $300 last fall (came with best part of a cord of well-seasoned hardwood as well), and there are plenty more lying around like that one. So to me, the stove itself is a consumable. Now if I had a brand new Jotul Oslo... :roll: ;-)

But, of course, make sure you take care of your expensive gear while you're learning. It's tough, but not indestructible. I mean no disrespect to those who seem overly concerned about their stoves, just trying to ease the anxiety a bit.

 

[djlarson77]

It's so easy to see this as overly obsessive coming from the viewpoint of a long time burner. Plus, I never paid $4K for a new stove and liner, so I never worried that much about the equipment. If fact, I burned for almost 20 years in a freebie box stove that probably had more replacement steel plate in it than the original stove cost new. All I ever cared about was getting enough heat and not burn my family to death. It's successor, a fine condition Vermont Castings Vigilant, cost me all of $300 last fall (came with best part of a cord of well-seasoned hardwood as well), and there are plenty more lying around like that one. So to me, the stove itself is a consumable. Now if I had a brand new Jotul Oslo... :roll: ;-)

But, of course, make sure you take care of your expensive gear while you're learning. It's tough, but not indestructible. I mean no disrespect to those who seem overly concerned about their stoves, just trying to ease the anxiety a bit.

Ya.....over thinking, overly concerned, overly obsessive.....might be taken by some as disrespectful. It's cool though, the majority of your dissertation was useful, though maybe a bit overly obsessive. Doesn't being a member here automatically qualify us as being a little obsessive about burning wood? For me, the concern is based on the fact that I'm not sure how much, if any, dry wood I'll have this burning season. I'm spending a large chunk of money on my setup, more than I ever imagined I would. So I'm sure I'll continue to obsess about the wood I'm going to burn in it until those beautiful stacks of oak splits are dry in 2012. Obsessing about my wet wood with others with a wood burning obsession does help the anxiety a bit, so thanks!

 

[oldspark]

MN guy, I understand where you are coming from, some of the poeple on this forum hammer it into your head about the dry wood and then they say you are over thinking it. :lol:

 

[Battenkiller]

It's cool though, the majority of your dissertation was useful, though maybe a bit overly obsessive. Obsessing about my wet wood with others with a wood burning obsession does help the anxiety a bit, so thanks!

Who you callin' obsessive? >:-(

Yeah, I do carry on. But I prefer "inquisitive" to obsessive. How's this: I think you are being overly inquisitive. Does that work? ;-)

Anyway, glad to obsess with fellow burners. I've learned a lot here in the last year. The "top down" fire starting method was worth the price of admission alone. I use it all the time now, even for an open campfire. It gets down to a big, even bed of cooking coals twice as fast as any other method. I might even let the stove go out at times this winter, just to use it.

Then there is tons of safety stuff I learned about chainsaws, info about trucks and their capacities, ideas for shed building, how different EPA stoves work, etc. Great group here.

 

[djlarson77]

Anyway, glad to obsess with fellow burners. I've learned a lot here in the last year. The "top down" fire starting method was worth the price of admission alone. I use it all the time now, even for an open campfire. It gets down to a big, even bed of cooking coals twice as fast as any other method. I might even let the stove go out at times this winter, just to use it.

Then there is tons of safety stuff I learned about chainsaws, info about trucks and their capacities, ideas for shed building, how different EPA stoves work, etc. Great group here.

Top down fire starting? Just learned something new again (googled it).....will try in the patio fire pit this weekend. Do you put a solid layer of large splits on the bottom or space them out?

What about the little fire starter squares - Rutland Safe lite fire starters? One of the dealers I shopped at turned me on to them and they work great with the log cabin fire, wonder how they'd work on the top down method. I suppose all my questions are answered in a thread somewhere on here, but I should really be working instead of obsessing :gulp:

 

[Battenkiller]

Solid layer of splits on bottom. The whole idea is to capture the radiant heat that the flame is throwing off below it. Air spaces kill that. Fire starters just make it harder, use three full-size pieces of dry newspaper instead. Roll them up and tie them in a single overhand knot. Put a layer of intermediate-size splits on the bottom layer, a layer of kindling then the newspaper. You might not think it will go, but all at once the whole top is dancing with clean burning wood. Seems that pyrolysis of the wood occurs below the flame, then the smoke rises through the flames and gets ignited. No smoke visible, or very little anyway. You'll love it. Best part is starting a fire while my experienced woodsmen friends watch. Two out of three times they'll bet me a beer it won't work. Now if I can only get them to drink real beer. :roll:

 

[djlarson77]

Solid layer of splits on bottom. The whole idea is to capture the radiant heat that the flame is throwing off below it. Air spaces kill that. Fire starters just make it harder, use three full-size pieces of dry newspaper instead. Roll them up and tie them in a single overhand knot. Put a layer of intermediate-size splits on the bottom layer, a layer of kindling then the newspaper. You might not think it will go, but all at once the whole top is dancing with clean burning wood. Seems that pyrolysis of the wood occurs below the flame, then the smoke rises through the flames and gets ignited. No smoke visible, or very little anyway. You'll love it. Best part is starting a fire while my experienced woodsmen friends watch. Two out of three times they'll bet me a beer it won't work. Now if I can only get them to drink real beer. :roll:

Are the intermediate splits and/or kindling placed in a solid layer too?

Now what am I going to do with my two boxes of fire starters (144 in each one)?

I'm not going to touch the beer comment, I've seen where that leads :zip:

 

[Battenkiller]

Are the intermediate splits and/or kindling placed in a solid layer too?

That's how I've been doing it. I alternate the direction of each layer to give the stack of wood more stability, but Lady BK lays them down in the same direction. She's so contrary that way. Works well either way best I can tell.

Now what am I going to do with my two boxes of fire starters?

Try 'em. Don't take my word for anything, find out what works best for you. If the paper works better, sell them to somebody here. If they're Super Cedars, they should go quickly. They're a good starter and they are well thought of on this board.

I'm not going to touch the beer comment, I've seen where that leads

Wha-a-a-at? I made another beer comment? :shut:

 

[BrianK]

for a 10-pound split, there is really only 0.4 pounds of extra water in a split that measures 27% MC compared to one that measures 20%. That is a total difference of about 6.4 ounces of water in a 10-pound split. This much water represents a heat loss of only about 390 BTUs out of a potential 70,000 BTUs of sensible heat in the split.

...a 10-pound split of wood that is at 20% MC and, therefore, contains 8.3 pounds of wood is creating 4.5 pounds of water (steam) as a product of combustion. That is huge compared to the 0.4 pound difference between woods at 20% and 27% MCs. And if you don't recover any of the latent heat in that steam (which you really don't want to do) by condensing it back into a liquid, you always lose 4365 BTU for every 10-pound split at 20% MC that you burn. Does that 390 BTU difference seem all that bad in comparison?

Folks should take it easy on themselves and stop obsessing over the finer points of moisture control

I'm just reviewing some old threads on moisture content. This is probably the single most important piece of data I've ever read on this forum in this regard. I kept having a nagging thought, "Aren't carbon dioxide and water the primary products of combustion?" If so, how much water in the smoke comes from combustion, and how much from MC in the wood? It seems the steam from the MC of the wood is negligible compared to the steam as a product of combustion.

So how much does MC actually contribute to creosote build up in newer EPA stoves?