Where's all the ash going?

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

In year 4, I'm seeing much less ash than the previous 3. Only about 2.5 gallons worth in two full months of burning. Only did 2 partial cleanings so far, about 1 a month. Much less than previous years, usually did about one cleaning per week.

This year so far it's been about 80% tulip poplar, 10% oak, 10% other, including hemlock, cherry, and ash.

Other years it's been more ash and walnut.

Just an interesting observation.

One last thing, this year almost all the wood has had bark removed prior to burning.

 

[peakbagger]

Ash is non organic materials in the fuel that cannot burn. That's the technical definition of ash. Bark has a higher percentage of dirt in it so if you remove the bark you remove the minerals. Note If the ash contains lumps that are charcoal then its un-burnt fuel. Some folks get confused as if the ash gets hot enough it can fuse into lumps that look like charcoal.

 

[bholler]

Ash is non organic materials in the fuel that cannot burn. That's the technical definition of ash. Bark has a higher percentage of dirt in it so if you remove the bark you remove the minerals. Note If the ash contains lumps that are charcoal then its un-burnt fuel. Some folks get confused as if the ash gets hot enough it can fuse into lumps that look like charcoal.

It can fuse into lumps but they look nothing like charcoal.

 

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

Ash is non organic materials in the fuel that cannot burn. That's the technical definition of ash. Bark has a higher percentage of dirt in it so if you remove the bark you remove the minerals. Note If the ash contains lumps that are charcoal then its un-burnt fuel. Some folks get confused as if the ash gets hot enough it can fuse into lumps that look like charcoal.

No confusion here.

I know the difference between clinkers and charcoal, I screened all the ashes from the last three years and sorted the charcoal and clinkers.

Yes, I know that's weird, but I had a purpose- clinkers and ash get used for the lawn and garden.

Charcoal was to be pulverized and added to concrete as a colorant.

Don't add charcoal to concrete. It neutralizes the cement and you're left with a worthless pile of wet grey sand and aggregate that doesn't set up. Luckily, I only wasted one bag of concrete before I found this out (4 stepping stones).

 

[Highbeam]

I have emptied ash from either stove yet this year. Might be an inch in the bottom of both since we started burning in September. Species of wood makes a huge difference.

 

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

I have emptied ash from either stove yet this year. Might be an inch in the bottom of both since we started burning in September. Species of wood makes a huge difference.

Remind me what species you are burning?

 

[Woody Stover]

Species of wood makes a huge difference.

Yep, Tulip is low-ash wood. And it's a damn good thing since you need to burn so much of it to get any heat.

Remind me what species you are burning?

He's mostly got Douglas Fir.

 

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

Yep, Tulip is low-ash wood. And it's a damn good thing since you need to burn so much of it to get any heat.
He's mostly got Douglas Fir.

We are going through quite a bit. I left much of it in huge chunks to try to extend the burn time, it's working pretty well (think three pieces for a full load).

 

[Woodsplitter67]

We are going through quite a bit. I left much of it in huge chunks to try to extend the burn time, it's working pretty well (think three pieces for a full load).

Tulip burns fast.. and you can rup through alot of wood that burns this way. I'll be cutting up white oak ant tulip this coming january February. I'm about 40 days away from starting to process wood. I like to use cherry or tulip in shoulder season. Iv been mixing cherry and pin oak as its been a little colder lately. Soon i will be moving to all oak for the winter, until we get to march April..
I fined that cherry and hickory make a lot of Ash. Oak seams to be a light to medium ash producer

 

[Bushels20]

maybe the walnut you burnt in years past created more ash because of its substantial bark?

 

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

maybe the walnut you burnt in years past created more ash because of its substantial bark?

Could have been. I think I tried to remove as much bark from the wanut too, but I don't remember that as well. I suspect bark accounted for much of the additional ash.

 

[Bushels20]

Could have been. I think I tried to remove as much bark from the wanut too, but I don't remember that as well. I suspect bark accounted for much of the additional ash.

I think the combination of ash and Walnut together could have been the reason for more ash than what you’re seeing now. Simply a guess though.

Both are good firewood in my opinion, as long as they are seasoned. Walnut burns down a little faster and doesn’t burn as hot.

 

[bholler]

maybe the walnut you burnt in years past created more ash because of its substantial bark?

No it is because of the high silica content.

 

[Nick Mystic]

I can't imagine going to the trouble of removing bark from wood just to reduce the amount of ash left in the stove. It's hard for me to believe it would make enough of a difference to warrant all the extra work. Besides, how difficult is it to remove ash from a stove? I have a hunch that when you leave ash in the stove some of it must get carried up the flue when you burn. Either that, or the continued high temperatures in the stove must disintegrate some of it.

 

[begreen]

I have emptied ash from either stove yet this year. Might be an inch in the bottom of both since we started burning in September. Species of wood makes a huge difference.

Sounds like doug fir. It's my go to NW wood.

 

[Highbeam]

Remind me what species you are burning?

Red cedar and Douglas fir. Hardwoods make more ash I’ve found.

 

[Highbeam]

Sounds like doug fir. It's my go to NW wood.

Mostly red cedar and now thankfully into Doug fir.

I have a ton of cherry to burn in about a month that will probably be ashier but should be a higher btu fuel.

 

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

I can't imagine going to the trouble of removing bark from wood just to reduce the amount of ash left in the stove. It's hard for me to believe it would make enough of a difference to warrant all the extra work. Besides, how difficult is it to remove ash from a stove? I have a hunch that when you leave ash in the stove some of it must get carried up the flue when you burn. Either that, or the continued high temperatures in the stove must disintegrate some of it.

I don't remove the bark to reduce the ash, that is just a side effect that is pleasant.

I remove it because it makes my wood season faster and better, cuts down on the mess, and bugs in the house, and I save the bark to shred and compost, it's a prime garden amendment. So my wood helps me heat my house and grow my food. Walnut bark just goes back in the woods.

 

[peakbagger]

When I was a kid (35 years ago) we visited my uncle's place up in northern Quebec. He had an automatic stoker wood boiler that used veneer cores. There was a veneer mill in the area and they sold the cores left over from the veneer process to the local public. The cores would be the hearth wood of a log and would vary in diameter but all would be perfectly cylindrical and had no bark. I might have been 12 so didn't get a lot details but one of the things he mentioned that there was very little ash. The boiler had an external stoker conveyor that he would load up with cores in the morning and when the boiler needed wood (I am not sure how it sensed it), a flap would open on the firebox and then the stoker would advance a log core and it would drop it in the firebox and the flap would close. He long ago moved to the wilds of northern Quebec so any details are lost to me. I think he had conventional baseboard.