Silver maple vs red oak vs bitternut hickory = Tie??!!

[TedyOH]

So I read and see all the charts and comments in forums about how much "hotter" oak and hickory burn compared to soft maple, how it's saved for the really cold nights, yet in my insert (maybe this is my answer, having an insert) with the IR thermometer, the top temps are all about the same no matter what's burning, 600 - 700 degrees when secondaries are peaking. I will say that the oak and hickory, when in the coaling stage, lasts a lot longer. I even have a magnetic thermometer where the blower air comes out, again no real significant difference, always around 250 - 275 at peak. Does the longer burn time / coaling stage make the higher BTU woods "hotter" or should they really be burning hotter?
Thanks.....

 

[Pennsyltucky Chris]

In my stove, maple evaporates in comparison to red oak, hickory, beech, etc.

 

[barmstrong2]

I think, if I'm reading your question correctly, you are confusing higher temperatures with longer burn. Both will burn at 600-700, but, oak will burn twice as long, thereby producing more btu's. Make sense?

 

[TedyOH]

I think, if I'm reading your question correctly, you are confusing higher temperatures with longer burn. Both will burn at 600-700, but, oak will burn twice as long, thereby producing more btu's. Make sense?

Yeah thanks, so the reality is it does not burn "hotter" as a lot say, just longer.

 

[DougA]

I think that dry, lower BTU wood such as Silver Maple burns faster and that gets confused with hotter because it actually may indeed lead to a hotter stove. If you load a stove with smaller dry Silver Maple splits and close the air down in the same way you would oak, then you will indeed have a much hotter stove for a short time.

To test this theory, load up some dry pine kindling and leave the air open. In my stove, this will cause an overfire within 15 min., probably less. I've done it and it's not something I will repeat. Within a few minutes the fire will be mostly burned out. Softer hardwood will always burn faster than harder hardwood. Everyone knows smaller splits will always burn faster than big splits and that will give you a hotter stove in the same way.

 

[English BoB]

Yeah thanks, so the reality is it does not burn "hotter" as a lot say, just longer.

You got it...................

bob

 

[Firefighter938]

Don't discount silver maple though. It is good wood and I normally try to get a cord every year. I really like it because it seasons quickly. Big old trees have dense wood also. Great wood to mix in with the denser stuff.

I have loaded my stove with black locust before on too big a bed of coals and almost had problems. My hot stove got way hotter because the BL was releasing it's stored energy too quickly.

 

[MarylandGuy]

Could it be the oak wasn't seasoned properly? In my area, oak needs a minimum of two to three years before it's ready. Maple only takes a year or so. That would make a huge difference in your burn.

 

[Stinkpickle]

Softwood is a sprinter. Hardwood runs marathons. Both can run fast.

 

[BrotherBart]

I always wish that I could try the different woods. My whole place is red and white oak and beech with only four silver maples on the whole five and a half acres. And the maples don't look they are feeling bad lately. And the beeches live forever. So I burn nothing but oak for thirty years. I do suspect that one I cut down three years ago was Osage. Only one like it on the place. Damned thing was wet and heavy and after two years on the stacks it was hard a a brick and burned with a blue flame like it was gasoline.

 

[Stinkpickle]

I always wish that I could try the different woods. My whole place is red and white oak and beech with only four silver maples on the whole five and a half acres. And the maples don't look they are feeling bad lately. And the beeches live forever. So I burn nothing but oak for thirty years. I do suspect that one I cut down three years ago was Osage. Only one like it on the place. Damned thing was wet and heavy and after two years on the stacks it was hard a a brick and burned with a blue flame like it was gasoline.

Those are some good options to be limited with.

 

[Fred Wright]

In theory you'll get much the same amount of heat from a pound of oak that you get from a pound of say, soft maple, presuming the species you're burning have had time to cure well. Oak tends to last longer in your stove due to its higher density.

 

[Jags]

In theory you'll get much the same amount of heat from a pound of oak that you get from a pound of say, soft maple, presuming the species you're burning have had time to cure well. Oak tends to last longer in your stove due to its higher density.

YES!
Dried wood is commonly referred to as 8600 BTU per pound irrelevant of species. Its the density (weight) that gives the additional heat output (or stored heating capacity). So to get a real world comparison of wood types, you really need to base it off of how many pounds you are loading, not how many splits. Pound for pound they will have virtually the same heat output.
And to confuse things further...we can talk about the burn characteristics from one flavor to another. Some burn up, some coal, some light slowly, some fast, blah, blah, blah......

 

[TedyOH]

Got it - so when I see or hear "if I load up my stove with black locust or osage orange it "cooks" me out of the room / melts my stove" is sorta a fairy tale, like when I see "iron wood is so hard it makes your chain spark"

 

[barmstrong2]

I always wish that I could try the different woods. My whole place is red and white oak and beech with only four silver maples on the whole five and a half acres. And the maples don't look they are feeling bad lately. And the beeches live forever. So I burn nothing but oak for thirty years. I do suspect that one I cut down three years ago was Osage. Only one like it on the place. Damned thing was wet and heavy and after two years on the stacks it was hard a a brick and burned with a blue flame like it was gasoline.

That must suck. Having nothing but years and years of oak to burn.

 

[Jags]

like when I see "iron wood is so hard it makes your chain spark"

No - that one is true.

You can put a pint of fuel in your cars gas tank and stomp on the gas pedal and go like heck for a short time. You can put 1 gallon of fuel in the same car and stomp on the pedal and blow your engine because you run it too hard for too long. Lots of folks don't adapt their burn methods to the extra fuel in their stove. Overheat, meltdown, etc. is the stoves version of blowing the engine.

 

[TedyOH]

No - that one is true.

I think I'm more apt to believe the melting stove fairy tale, I don't think it's possible for wood, any wood, to cause hardened steel to spark.

 

[Jags]

I think I'm more apt to believe the melting stove fairy tale, I don't think it's possible for wood, any wood, to cause hardened steel to spark.

I doubt that it is actually the wood fibers, probably more inclined to believe captured grit or even metal to metal wear (bar and chain), but there is no doubt that I see more sparks when working up osage, than I do with silver maple.

 

[Firefighter938]

Black locust is prone to causing chain spark as well. I always thought it may be minerals in the wood. Not sure what it is, but locust causes my chains to spark and dull quickly.

 

[Longstreet]

YES!
Dried wood is commonly referred to as 8600 BTU per pound irrelevant of species. Its the density (weight) that gives the additional heat output (or stored heating capacity). So to get a real world comparison of wood types, you really need to base it off of how many pounds you are loading, not how many splits. Pound for pound they will have virtually the same heat output.
And to confuse things further...we can talk about the burn characteristics from one flavor to another. Some burn up, some coal, some light slowly, some fast, blah, blah, blah......

Yes and no. Softwoods like pine contain 10ish% more btus per pound than hardwoods.

 

[Jags]

Yes and no. Softwoods like pine contain 10ish% more btus per pound than hardwoods.

Source?

 

[Longstreet]

Lots of places.

http://extension.missouri.edu/p/G5450 - 5% more
http://mb-soft.com/juca/print/311.html - 5% more
http://www.pelletking.com/wood-pellet-information.aspx - 10-20% more (in pellet form)
http://www.briquettingsystems.com/heatvalues/heatvalues.htm - Up to 40% more (Their data is from the USDA so it's pretty reliable)

Or just trust those crazier wood burners (sic) on the pellet forum at hearth.com. It's fun to read the different forums, it's a completely different set of characters on the other side!
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/hardwood-vs-softwood.37905/

Lot's of the research is based on pellets because they measure fuel by pound and not volume, so the exact numbers might not line up exactly for our stoves. But without a doubt, many softwoods contain high single digit percentages more btus/lb than hardwoods.

 

[Applesister]

Locust and some other trees encapsulate silica in their cells. Dirt and grit gets buried in bark.
There are organic compounds of all various sorts created in all different types of trees. Medicinal properties of bark, leaves, flowers, roots. Fibrous properties, waterproof properties, waxes, volitile esters, essential oils, rubber..cork...tannins, dyes....God what else...fruit...nuts...seeds...
Oh...and Oxygen.
"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others." -George Orwell
Personally I love that wintergreen oil in Black birch...and all time favorite
MAPLE SYRUP

 

[Jags]

Interesting on the first two posts. I am not sure that pellets are an accurate representation of cord wood due to the mechanical forces applied (compression), but none the less, the first two posts do appear to support an increase from 8660 BTU to 9050 BTU for resinous soft woods. I do believe that is the first time I have ever seen that referenced.

 

[Applesister]

They are all the same but...completely different. Trees...not necessarily wood. Think of them as a plant first and then wood as a byproduct.
And I imagine the softwoods with their resins, pitch, and characteristics they present to offer higher BTUs.
All of these chemical constituents get totally passed by when you measure differences by weight alone. Volume even less.
And yeah, I noticed that too, the different forums have different followers. Its interesting.