This looks like some good reading thought i would share it with you all

[BLAZE82]

http://www.mastersweep.com/wood.htm

 

[BLAZE82]

well does anyone think that this is good information and advise to follow?

 

[Lumber-Jack]

Makes sense to me, especially this part.

Back in the early 1980's, tests were conducted to discover which kind of wood created the most creosote in a regular "open" fireplace. The results were surprising. Contrary to popular opinion, the hardwood's, like oak and madrone, created MORE creosote than the softwoods, like fir and pine. The reason for this, is that if the softwoods are dry, they create a hotter, more intense fire. The draft created by the hotter fire moves the air up the chimney faster! Because it is moving faster, the flue gas does not have as much time to condense as creosote inside the chimney. Also, because the flue gas is hotter: it does not cool down to the condensation point as quickly. On the contrary, the dense hardwood's tend to smolder more, so their flue gas temperature is cooler. Thus, more creosote is able to condense on the surface of the flue. So, saying that "fir builds up more creosote than oak" just isn't true! It is a misunderstanding to think that it's the pitch in wood which causes creosote. It's not the pitch that is the problem, it's the water IN the pitch. Once the water in the wood has evaporated, that pitch becomes high octane fuel! When dry, softwoods burn extremely hot!

 

[North of 60]

A+ for the info... as far as response, give it some time. Pretty late for the southern folk on a night before work. I always knew my pine was safer to burn than that darn oak. Only good for my shoulder seasons. :lol: ;-)

 

[Lumber-Jack]

Makes sense to me, especially this part.

Back in the early 1980's, tests were conducted to discover which kind of wood created the most creosote in a regular "open" fireplace. The results were surprising. Contrary to popular opinion, the hardwood's, like oak and madrone, created MORE creosote than the softwoods, like fir and pine. The reason for this, is that if the softwoods are dry, they create a hotter, more intense fire. The draft created by the hotter fire moves the air up the chimney faster! Because it is moving faster, the flue gas does not have as much time to condense as creosote inside the chimney. Also, because the flue gas is hotter: it does not cool down to the condensation point as quickly. On the contrary, the dense hardwood's tend to smolder more, so their flue gas temperature is cooler. Thus, more creosote is able to condense on the surface of the flue. So, saying that "fir builds up more creosote than oak" just isn't true! It is a misunderstanding to think that it's the pitch in wood which causes creosote. It's not the pitch that is the problem, it's the water IN the pitch. Once the water in the wood has evaporated, that pitch becomes high octane fuel! When dry, softwoods burn extremely hot!

Actually there is a correlation between the precceding logic and how the myth that Pine causes chimney fires probably got started.
You take your typical Easterner who burns predominantly unseasoned Oak for a few years, blissfully developing a good thick coating of creosote in his chimney. He finds, or someone offers him, some nice dry Pine. He then proceeds to burn a load of this nice dry Pine in the same manner as he usually burns the wet Oak expecting much the same sort of results, but instead the fire burns much hotter (the way it is suppose to) than it has ever done in the past, thus igniting the creosote, that has been developing in the chimney for years, and he has a huge chimney fire. The fire department comes and puts out the fire (hopefully saving his house and family), after the fire chief asks the homeowner how the fire started? And the homeowner says, "all I did was burn a load of Pine." Thus perpetuating the myth that the Pine was the "cause" of the chimney fire.

 

[budman]

Hey,watch it pal i am a easterner and my wood is all-ways dry. :lol:

 

[Lumber-Jack]

Hey,watch it pal i am a easterner and my wood is all-ways dry. :lol:

Ah, but are you typical? ;-)

I draw any such conclusions from what I read in the threads in this forum. Those that store and season their hardwood 2 and 3 years ahead seem to be the exception rather than the rule,,, at least that is what I am hearing from other Easterners in this forum.

 

[SolarAndWood]

Those that store and season their hardwood 2 and 3 years ahead seem to be the exception rather than the rule,,,

Given the time, effort and space required to do this especially for a full time burner in a colder climate, I suspect you are right. I am starting year 5 and only this year do I have any significant quantity of 2 yo seasoned wood on hand. Given the other demands of life, it is no trivial feat unless you buy your way ahead.

 

[ChrisNJ]

Makes sense to me, especially this part.

Back in the early 1980's, tests were conducted to discover which kind of wood created the most creosote in a regular "open" fireplace. The results were surprising. Contrary to popular opinion, the hardwood's, like oak and madrone, created MORE creosote than the softwoods, like fir and pine. The reason for this, is that if the softwoods are dry, they create a hotter, more intense fire. The draft created by the hotter fire moves the air up the chimney faster! Because it is moving faster, the flue gas does not have as much time to condense as creosote inside the chimney. Also, because the flue gas is hotter: it does not cool down to the condensation point as quickly. On the contrary, the dense hardwood's tend to smolder more, so their flue gas temperature is cooler. Thus, more creosote is able to condense on the surface of the flue. So, saying that "fir builds up more creosote than oak" just isn't true! It is a misunderstanding to think that it's the pitch in wood which causes creosote. It's not the pitch that is the problem, it's the water IN the pitch. Once the water in the wood has evaporated, that pitch becomes high octane fuel! When dry, softwoods burn extremely hot!

Actually there is a correlation between the precceding logic and how the myth that Pine causes chimney fires probably got started.
You take your typical Easterner who burns predominantly unseasoned Oak for a few years, blissfully developing a good thick coating of creosote in his chimney. He finds, or someone offers him, some nice dry Pine. He then proceeds to burn a load of this nice dry Pine in the same manner as he usually burns the wet Oak expecting much the same sort of results, but instead the fire burns much hotter (the way it is suppose to) than it has ever done in the past, thus igniting the creosote, that has been developing in the chimney for years, and he has a huge chimney fire. The fire department comes and puts out the fire (hopefully saving his house and family), after the fire chief asks the homeowner how the fire started? And the homeowner says, "all I did was burn a load of Pine." Thus perpetuating the myth that the Pine was the "cause" of the chimney fire.

That is an excellent hypothesis and would be willing to bet it happens often. I have really come to dislike my oak as the seasoning time is too extreme for my yard space and it seems to be the predominant wood around me.

 

[SolarAndWood]

I have really come to dislike my oak as the seasoning time is too extreme for my yard space and it seems to be the predominant wood around me.

More fuel for the west coast fire...

 

[CarbonNeutral]

Makes sense to me, especially this part.

Back in the early 1980's, tests were conducted to discover which kind of wood created the most creosote in a regular "open" fireplace. The results were surprising. Contrary to popular opinion, the hardwood's, like oak and madrone, created MORE creosote than the softwoods, like fir and pine. The reason for this, is that if the softwoods are dry, they create a hotter, more intense fire. The draft created by the hotter fire moves the air up the chimney faster! Because it is moving faster, the flue gas does not have as much time to condense as creosote inside the chimney. Also, because the flue gas is hotter: it does not cool down to the condensation point as quickly. On the contrary, the dense hardwood's tend to smolder more, so their flue gas temperature is cooler. Thus, more creosote is able to condense on the surface of the flue. So, saying that "fir builds up more creosote than oak" just isn't true! It is a misunderstanding to think that it's the pitch in wood which causes creosote. It's not the pitch that is the problem, it's the water IN the pitch. Once the water in the wood has evaporated, that pitch becomes high octane fuel! When dry, softwoods burn extremely hot!

Actually there is a correlation between the precceding logic and how the myth that Pine causes chimney fires probably got started.
You take your typical Easterner who burns predominantly unseasoned Oak for a few years, blissfully developing a good thick coating of creosote in his chimney. He finds, or someone offers him, some nice dry Pine. He then proceeds to burn a load of this nice dry Pine in the same manner as he usually burns the wet Oak expecting much the same sort of results, but instead the fire burns much hotter (the way it is suppose to) than it has ever done in the past, thus igniting the creosote, that has been developing in the chimney for years, and he has a huge chimney fire. The fire department comes and puts out the fire (hopefully saving his house and family), after the fire chief asks the homeowner how the fire started? And the homeowner says, "all I did was burn a load of Pine." Thus perpetuating the myth that the Pine was the "cause" of the chimney fire.

I was thinking exactly the same thing this weekend as the tree guy was lecturing me on burning pine (as he dropped some pine cutoffs at my house for free...)

 

[myzamboni]

I have really come to dislike my oak as the seasoning time is too extreme for my yard space and it seems to be the predominant wood around me.

More fuel for the west coast fire...

I have oak that 'pee'd water on the splitter in March that burned great last night. You just need Cali sun/breeze with zero rain from May-Oct.

 

[Cedrusdeodara]

I was surprised to read the bit about avoiding white oak, I always thought it was preferred over red oak varieties due to it's higher BTU value

Oak, white 25.7 MBTUs/cord
Oak, red 24 MBTUs/cord

All oak seasons so painfully slow that I prefer other woods, but I didn't think White Oak was a poor wood to burn, as it suggests.

 

[Backwoods Savage]

A couple points I do not agree with is, like Cedrusdeodara stated, white oak. I'll take any that others do not want and be a very happy camper.

His point of measuring was with an open fireplace. I hate to see people quoting from these type of fires because it is just so different from burning in a stove vs. open fireplace.

In addition to the above, and I'm amazed someone hasn't picked up on is the wood deteriorating after 4-5 years. That all depends upon how the wood is handled. I burn 6-7 year old wood and it it excellent. Actually, it is difficult to tell the difference between some of our 7 year old wood and some 2 years old wood.

Here is an interesting tidbit. A couple days ago I made a big bunch of kindling....from 6 or 7 year old wood. It split excellent and is in great condition. A while back on this forum I made some pictures to show how I make kindling. That kindling was made using some soft maple that I had cut down but was still in tree form back in the woods (up off the ground). That had been cut a couple years and I whacked off a couple logs to split for the kindling. It would not take long for that wood to be punky and was a little soft for splitting into kindling. No so the other day when I just grabbed some off the wood pile. It was great.

Point is, you still can not believe everything out there. Some is true and fact and some are just some personal observation or something they read and passed on. It is sort of like some of those emails that most of us get from time to time. Some is fact and some is questionable.

 

[d.n.f.]

Makes sense to me, especially this part.

Back in the early 1980's, tests were conducted to discover which kind of wood created the most creosote in a regular "open" fireplace. The results were surprising. Contrary to popular opinion, the hardwood's, like oak and madrone, created MORE creosote than the softwoods, like fir and pine. The reason for this, is that if the softwoods are dry, they create a hotter, more intense fire. The draft created by the hotter fire moves the air up the chimney faster! Because it is moving faster, the flue gas does not have as much time to condense as creosote inside the chimney. Also, because the flue gas is hotter: it does not cool down to the condensation point as quickly. On the contrary, the dense hardwood's tend to smolder more, so their flue gas temperature is cooler. Thus, more creosote is able to condense on the surface of the flue. So, saying that "fir builds up more creosote than oak" just isn't true! It is a misunderstanding to think that it's the pitch in wood which causes creosote. It's not the pitch that is the problem, it's the water IN the pitch. Once the water in the wood has evaporated, that pitch becomes high octane fuel! When dry, softwoods burn extremely hot!

Actually there is a correlation between the precceding logic and how the myth that Pine causes chimney fires probably got started.
You take your typical Easterner who burns predominantly unseasoned Oak for a few years, blissfully developing a good thick coating of creosote in his chimney. He finds, or someone offers him, some nice dry Pine. He then proceeds to burn a load of this nice dry Pine in the same manner as he usually burns the wet Oak expecting much the same sort of results, but instead the fire burns much hotter (the way it is suppose to) than it has ever done in the past, thus igniting the creosote, that has been developing in the chimney for years, and he has a huge chimney fire. The fire department comes and puts out the fire (hopefully saving his house and family), after the fire chief asks the homeowner how the fire started? And the homeowner says, "all I did was burn a load of Pine." Thus perpetuating the myth that the Pine was the "cause" of the chimney fire.

In your face!

Woohoo!


Sounds logical to me.