# Can rain actually help firewood season faster?



## Jeffm1 (Jul 30, 2015)

I have heard that contrary to common belief, rainwater, to a point, can actually help green wood season faster by helping to wash away surface saps and oils. Once that happens the water drys up much faster than the saps do. I am sure there are many variables, especially the climate and humidity of your location, but does anyone have any experience/theories/opinions on this? We just had a pretty good rainstorm and after a few days of sun afterward my wood piles did indeed to appear dryer than before. Too bad I didn't put a moisture meter to some before and after....


----------



## Hogwildz (Jul 31, 2015)

I ain't buying that. It ain't the surface you worry about, it is the interior moisture that takes longest to escape. I would think it would have to be completely coated in thick sap, for that to make a difference.
More importantly, the wood should be split for fastest, optimal drying capacity.


----------



## DoubleB (Jul 31, 2015)

Interesting idea, but I don't believe it, either.  I imagine the inside of a stack would be lots of dripping, not a power washer.

More so, I've heard 2 or 3 different explanations for why more rain (to a point) might cause faster drying, and the reasons are unrelated but equally fascinating if true.  Which makes the whole idea seem like a pretty good hoax appealing to the believer's imagination to keep it alive.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade (pun intended), because I don't know for sure and you can dry your stacks the way you please.


----------



## Stinkpickle (Jul 31, 2015)

That would be an easy experiment to run.


----------



## Jeffm1 (Jul 31, 2015)

Hogwildz said:


> I ain't buying that. It ain't the surface you worry about, it is the interior moisture that takes longest to escape. I would think it would have to be completely coated in thick sap, for that to make a difference.
> More importantly, the wood should be split for fastest, optimal drying capacity.


Just to clarify, I am referring to green wood that has been split and stacked...


----------



## Poindexter (Jul 31, 2015)

I have heard it claimed, but I haven't heard a reason for it that my physics teacher would not laugh at.

I think maybe under the right conditions just a little bit of rain might dry off really fast in hot sun immediately after the rain and crack open the ends a little more to maybe let the interior water out a little bit faster than it was going out before - but I can't prove it.  Also, I got part of my seasoning wood piled EW and some of it NS, and some of it gets more shade then others - so whatever the right amount of rain is for part of my stack would likely be the wrong amount for other parts of my stacks.

I cover mine on top but don't worry about a little wind driven rain hitting the sides.


----------



## Bigg_Redd (Aug 1, 2015)

Jeffm1 said:


> does anyone have any experience/theories/opinions on this?



Rain helps firewood dry in the same way a sprinkler helps laundry on a clothesline dry.


----------



## Jeffm1 (Aug 1, 2015)

Poindexter said:


> ...
> 
> I think maybe under the right conditions just a little bit of rain might dry off really fast in hot sun immediately after the rain and crack open the ends a little more to maybe let the interior water out a little bit faster than it was going out before - but I can't prove it....



Interesting thought. Perhaps the process of drying/wetting causes increased swelling and shrinking which in turn causes more cracks in the wood so the interior can evaporate easier....the main drawback I see is that without a follow-up with days of warm sun it would just prolong the process. I guess someone will have to do an experiment to be certain.


----------



## byQ (Aug 2, 2015)

A possible explanation which probably isn't true:  the rain soaks into the drier exterior and 'connects' water to the wetter interior thus causing a siphoning effect. That is as the water on the exterior starts to dry it pulls water from the interior of the wood to replace the water on the exterior. So in this case the rain would prime the firewood for this 'wicking' or pulling effect to occur.


----------



## paul bunion (Aug 2, 2015)

Jeffm1 said:


> Interesting thought. Perhaps the process of drying/wetting causes increased swelling and shrinking which in turn causes more cracks in the wood so the interior can evaporate easier....the main drawback I see is that without a follow-up with days of warm sun it would just prolong the process. I
> guess someone will have to do an experiment to be certain.



End checking is caused by uneven drying, shrinkage and the resulting pressure that the wood comes under.  The exterior is drying faster than the interior.  The exterior gets smaller while the interior hasn't and voila, it cracks.    If you are in fact seeing larger cracks right after a rain then perhaps the interior took up some water and swelled.    Get a scale and weigh some pieces before and after a heavy rain and then see how long it takes to get back to what it was before the rain. The results might be interesting.



byQ said:


> A possible explanation which probably isn't true:  the rain soaks into the drier exterior and 'connects' water to the wetter interior thus causing a siphoning effect. That is as the water on the exterior starts to dry it pulls water from the interior of the wood to replace the water on the exterior. So in this case the rain would prime the firewood for this 'wicking' or pulling effect to occur.



I think you are correct that it isn't true.   If it were then a completely saturated green piece of wood, fresh off the stump cut and split would be able to 'suck' itself dry in a matter of minutes on a hot sunny day.   I believe the companion theory is that hot water will freeze faster than cold water (under the same conditions).


----------



## Babaganoosh (Aug 2, 2015)

Just a theory but maybe it's possible that acid rain may help the drying process along. Different ph might dry the wood. 

Just a weird theory is all.


----------



## Jeffm1 (Aug 2, 2015)

paul bunion said:


> I believe the companion theory is that hot water will freeze faster than cold water (under the same conditions).



That "theory" is indeed true, btw. Try it in your freezer.


----------



## paul bunion (Aug 2, 2015)

Jeffm1 said:


> That "theory" is indeed true, btw. Try it in your freezer.



No way is it remotely possible.    Warmer water can indeed lose temperature faster than cooler water but on the way from going from hot to frozen it will need to pass by the same temp that the cold water started at.  And at the same temp their rate of cooling will be exactly the same.   So if you have an ice making race the cold water is going to have a head start and become colder while the hot water is cooling down to the cold water's start point.  The cold starting water will always be ahead.   The hot water isn't going to catch up till they both are frozen and have then dropped to freezer temp.


----------



## Babaganoosh (Aug 3, 2015)

http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/hot-water-freezes-faster-cold-and-now-we-know




paul bunion said:


> No way is it remotely possible.    Warmer water can indeed lose temperature faster than cooler water but on the way from going from hot to frozen it will need to pass by the same temp that the cold water started at.  And at the same temp their rate of cooling will be exactly the same.   So if you have an ice making race the cold water is going to have a head start and become colder while the hot water is cooling down to the cold water's start point.  The cold starting water will always be ahead.   The hot water isn't going to catch up till they both are frozen and have then dropped to freezer temp.


----------



## Jags (Aug 3, 2015)

paul bunion said:


> Warmer water can indeed lose temperature faster than cooler water but on the way from going from hot to frozen it will need to pass by the same temp that the cold water started at.



The piece of the puzzle that is not often thought of is the higher evaporation rate of the warm water.  You end up freezing less water.  Now the whole experiment falls apart if you expect to "freeze" a one pound block of ice....


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 3, 2015)

Jags said:


> The piece of the puzzle that is not often thought of is the higher evaporation rate of the warm water.  You end up freezing less water.  Now the whole experiment falls apart if you expect to "freeze" a one pound block of ice....


Bingo...there is less water left over to freeze.


----------



## Babaganoosh (Aug 3, 2015)

Look at my link. It's more than that. We are talking about what goes on at a molecular level and the bonds between them.


----------



## Jags (Aug 3, 2015)

Babaganoosh said:


> Look at my link. It's more than that. We are talking about what goes on at a molecular level and the bonds between them.


There does not appear to be anything that supports the idea once both hot and cold come to the same temp (say 35F for instance).  There is no difference in the two liquids at that point.


----------



## CountryBoy19 (Aug 3, 2015)

Jags said:


> There does not appear to be anything that supports the idea once both hot and cold come to the same temp (say 35F for instance).  There is no difference in the two liquids at that point.


 Also don't overlook this from said article:


> Unfortunately the effect doesn’t always appear - cold water often does actually freeze faster than hot, as you would expect


The supposed effect (of which I haven't researched further) is nothing more than a phenomenon that doesn't occur that often...


----------



## Babaganoosh (Aug 3, 2015)

Jags said:


> There does not appear to be anything that supports the idea once both hot and cold come to the same temp (say 35F for instance).  There is no difference in the two liquids at that point.




True, but if not then why does the hot occasionally  freeze faster? I'm sure they accounted for evaporation  when they did scientific tests.


----------



## Jeffm1 (Aug 3, 2015)

paul bunion said:


> No way is it remotely possible.    Warmer water can indeed lose temperature faster than cooler water but on the way from going from hot to frozen it will need to pass by the same temp that the cold water started at.  And at the same temp their rate of cooling will be exactly the same.   So if you have an ice making race the cold water is going to have a head start and become colder while the hot water is cooling down to the cold water's start point.  The cold starting water will always be ahead.   The hot water isn't going to catch up till they both are frozen and have then dropped to freezer temp.


Just do it yourself in your freezer with two bowls of water. One hot, one cold. You will be surprised to see the hot water freeze first.


----------



## Oldman47 (Aug 4, 2015)

When freezing water you are not just freezing water. You are also dealing with all of the dissolved gasses. A factor that affects freezing time is indeed the amount of water remaining as ice but another factor is how much less gasses can remain dissolved in hot water. Just like salts, gasses can only dissolve up to a point determines by the temperature. At 211ºF, virtually all dissolved gasses have been driven off. I'm not sure how relevant dissolved gasses are in this process but it is another variable probably not being measured.


----------



## Retreadsme (Aug 9, 2015)

What about heavy water?    Does it freeze faster hot or cold?


----------



## tsquini (Aug 10, 2015)

If your hypothesis was true then seasoning your wood under water would dry it out even quicker.


----------



## Jeffm1 (Aug 10, 2015)

tsquini said:


> If your hypothesis was true then seasoning your wood under water would dry it out even quicker.


#1) It was not a hypothesis. It was a question.
#2) re-read the original question and take note that the original question regarded a specific scenario that involved a situation of repeated surface wetting and re-drying. The scenario had nothing to do with permanently submerged wood, smartypants.


----------

