# dehumidifier for "green" wood



## sw mariner

Used dehumidifier to dry"green" wood in the basemant.........within 2 weeks had good dry wood.


----------



## North of 60

OK, I will bite. :vampire: How dry was it?   Was it split into 1/4" by 1/4" pieces? How much wood?  How many litres of water did you collect over the two weeks?  What type of wood?


----------



## bogydave

Only problem I see is getting rid of that much water, my 6 cords probably has a few gallons. sump pump?
How did you force the moisture from the wood, 4 - 6" thick pieces usually release moisture pretty slow. Heated to what temperature?


----------



## mayhem

Note the use of "green", not green.  

Was it a tree you jsut took down that was living and you bucked and split it in the last week or so?

Or are you now in the business of selling "seasoned" firewood?


----------



## Wood Duck

I'd like to hear more. Do you mean that the firewood is dry the whole way through - or 'seasoned' - or was it just dry on the outside? How green was it when you started? All the dehumidifier does is lower the humidity in the room, so how does this method dry wood faster than any other stack of firewood in dry air? I don't think firewood stacked in Nevada dries in two weeks. I don't think firewood stacked indoor in the winter dries in two weeks.


----------



## sw mariner

1 cord of newly cut harwood,yellow birtch,maple,neatly stacked and packed in the basement with the temperature hovering around 25-30 celcius.dehumidifier removing aprox.2 gallons per day.Not the proper way of doing things i'll admit;but when works great if your in a pinch


----------



## LLigetfa

OK, doing a bit of quick math with rounded numbers...

A cord of "green" Oak = ~6000 lbs
A cord of seasoned Oak = ~3000 lbs
A gallon of water = ~8 lbs
3000 / 8 = 375 gallons
2 gallons per day = 187.5 days

Now that would only be true if the last gallon left the wood as fast as the first gallon did but we all know that it doesn't work that way, so I have to say this is a false claim.

End of story but of course there will be many others that spout this unsubstantiated claim.


----------



## PNWBurner

LLigetfa said:
			
		

> OK, doing a bit of quick math with rounded numbers...
> 
> A cord of "green" Oak = ~6000 lbs
> A cord of seasoned Oak = ~3000 lbs
> A gallon of water = ~8 lbs
> 3000 / 8 = 375 gallons
> 2 gallons per day = 187.5 days
> 
> Now that would only be true if the last gallon left the wood as fast as the first gallon did but we all know that it doesn't work that way, so I have to say this is a false claim.
> 
> End of story but of course there will be many others that spout this unsubstantiated claim.



Oh come one, let's not let facts get in the way of a good story!  ;-) 

Seriously, I agee with your rough calculations.  There is an awfull lot of water in green wood.  I don't think a cord would dry in two weeks in the middle of a 120 degree Arizona summer.  Maybe the outer surface would feel dry though...


----------



## Troutchaser

I took one year seasoned splits and put into a basement room with a dehumidifier.  Stacked with plenty of air gaps between each split.  One medium cherry split lost 100 ml. of water 3-4 weeks.  That's a lot of water.
Don't factor in what the dehumidifier is collecting.  That's coming from the room.  But with my room's humidity running 25%-30%, I'd say those splits lost some quick moisture.


----------



## sw mariner

love the calculations ...........but according to my calculations it's burning like gasoline............reality is i can't say how high the moisture content was before i started the process,just know it was newly cut wood .........i heard the rumor that the process worked ........so i tried it.......now i'm a beleiver.


----------



## Backwoods Savage

As for me, I'll stick to doing things "the other way." That is, I'll stack it out in the sun and wind and let Mother Nature do her thing. It won't even cost me a cent for the electricity to run Mother Nature's dehumidifier.


As for the calculations, I'm perhaps not up to date on things but here is what I came up with:

Room 25-30C = 77 - 86 F     That is a pretty wide range of temperatures.
2 gallons per day = A lot of water! How much from wood and how much from basement is not known but most basements around here are pretty damp places.

One medium cherry lost 100 ml in 3-4 weeks.  100 ml = 3.381 4022701 ounce [US, liquid]   Am I wrong here?


I am always amazed how people try to get around this seasoning thing. Instead of doing things the easy and time-proven way they try to work around it and these are usually the folks who end up with big problems. Better to relax and let time and Mother Nature work as they are our friends....if we will let them be.


----------



## JustWood

Backwoods Savage said:
			
		

> As for me, I'll stick to doing things "the other way." That is, I'll stack it out in the sun and wind and let Mother Nature do her thing. It won't even cost me a cent for the electricity to run Mother Nature's dehumidifier.
> 
> 
> As for the calculations, I'm perhaps not up to date on things but here is what I came up with:
> 
> Room 25-30C = 77 - 86 F     That is a pretty wide range of temperatures.
> 2 gallons per day = A lot of water! How much from wood and how much from basement is not known but most basements around here are pretty damp places.
> 
> One medium cherry lost 100 ml in 3-4 weeks.  100 ml = 3.381 4022701 ounce [US, liquid]   Am I wrong here?
> 
> 
> I am always amazed how people try to get around this seasoning thing. Instead of doing things the easy and time-proven way they try to work around it and these are usually the folks who end up with big problems. Better to relax and let time and Mother Nature work as they are our friends....if we will let them be.



Burger King mentality.
Gotta have it now and "my way".


----------



## skyline

PNWBurner said:
			
		

> LLigetfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, doing a bit of quick math with rounded numbers...
> 
> A cord of "green" Oak = ~6000 lbs
> A cord of seasoned Oak = ~3000 lbs
> A gallon of water = ~8 lbs
> 3000 / 8 = 375 gallons
> 2 gallons per day = 187.5 days
> 
> Now that would only be true if the last gallon left the wood as fast as the first gallon did but we all know that it doesn't work that way, so I have to say this is a false claim.
> 
> End of story but of course there will be many others that spout this unsubstantiated claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come one, let's not let facts get in the way of a good story!  ;-)
Click to expand...


I guess I wouldn't swallow these "facts" any faster than the story. From green/dry wts at this site: http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPrinterFriendlyPub.aspx?P=G5450 
(I have no reason to think these aren't accurate) the wt. difference between a cord of green/dry(20%) maple is 810 lbs., 1379lbs for Oak, Birch isn't mentioned. So for Maple that would mean losing 97 gallons of water (810lbs/8.345 lbs/gal) or 48.5 days if the humidifier captured 100% of water lost at 2 gallons/day. BUT (yeah I know....) if one assumed that the humidifier only captured 1/4 of the water lost and the rest was lost by vapor exchanging through the house, windows, heating etc. it would fit with a couple of weeks. 

The firewood kiln manufactures claim to dry firewood in 24 hrs and I guess I don't have any problem believing you could dry a split in the oven over 24 hrs, why not in 2 weeks at 77-85 °F (as claimed), with a dehumidifier lowering the RH and circulating the air through the wood. If his splits had sat around for a few days before getting loaded into the basement, they could have easily lost 5-10% moisture by weight before even starting depending on his local conditions. It would have been helpful to weigh the splits before and after to have a better idea how much water was really lost. Certainly simple enough to do next time.

In my own experiment as I have reported on this site, I have lost over 31% by weight in 28 days on fir and 45% by wt. in 21 days with Alder with just a fan, no heat. My temperatures averaged 45.6 °F and RH  85% with normal daily fluctuations each. And 50-90% of that loss was in the first week. I have to think with dry air and warmer temperatures it would have been lots faster. I'll be glad to send along the data file to anybody that wants it.

I haven't found what the limiting speed on moisture moving out of wood is. No doubt it's slower in dense woods like Oak verses Alder, and increases at higher temperatures. 
I'm thinking ultimately the moisture in the center of a split can't move until the moisture around of it moves out of the way... which can't move until the moisture outside of it moves and so on. But as long as the outside surface is under dry conditions, moisture should head that way as fast as the cell structure and temperatures allow.


----------



## PNWBurner

skyline, you raise some good points.  But it seems to me that there are locations where day time summer temps are in that range with very low natural RH and we don't hear about wood seasoning that fast.

I just so happen to have a dehumidifier gathering dust here and a cord of semi-green doug fir at about 30% MC.  Not sure I'd want to lug the whole cord in for an experiment but maybe I can find some way to contain a decent pile of splits and give it a test.  Weighing before/after of course.  I wonder if covering the splits and the dehumidifier with visqueen plastic sheeting would work or just overheat the thing...


----------



## quads

Backwoods Savage said:
			
		

> As for me, I'll stick to doing things "the other way." That is, I'll stack it out in the sun and wind and let Mother Nature do her thing. It won't even cost me a cent for the electricity to run Mother Nature's dehumidifier.
> 
> 
> As for the calculations, I'm perhaps not up to date on things but here is what I came up with:
> 
> Room 25-30C = 77 - 86 F     That is a pretty wide range of temperatures.
> 2 gallons per day = A lot of water! How much from wood and how much from basement is not known but most basements around here are pretty damp places.
> 
> One medium cherry lost 100 ml in 3-4 weeks.  100 ml = 3.381 4022701 ounce [US, liquid]   Am I wrong here?
> 
> 
> I am always amazed how people try to get around this seasoning thing. Instead of doing things the easy and time-proven way they try to work around it and these are usually the folks who end up with big problems. Better to relax and let time and Mother Nature work as they are our friends....if we will let them be.


+1!  Get 3 or more years ahead with cut, split, stacked and don't worry about any "methods" for creating properly seasoned ready to burn wood.  Time (seasons) does it for you.


----------



## skyline

PNWBurner said:
			
		

> skyline, you raise some good points.  But it seems to me that there are locations where day time summer temps are in that range with very low natural RH and we don't hear about wood seasoning that fast.
> 
> I just so happen to have a dehumidifier gathering dust here and a cord of semi-green doug fir at about 30% MC.  Not sure I'd want to lug the whole cord in for an experiment but maybe I can find some way to contain a decent pile of splits and give it a test.  Weighing before/after of course.  I wonder if covering the splits and the dehumidifier with visqueen plastic sheeting would work or just overheat the thing...




I know what you mean, and if we did, we wouldn't believe it anyway! I guess I just figure 2 weeks solid of 80-85 °F with air movement and I'm guessing 5-20% RH at those temps is going to dry wood really fast.
I'll be interested in your results since you're in my "neck" of the woods.  I don't know where you're bringing the wood into (house, garage or basement) but I'm pretty sure that most dehumidifiers quickly stop working as the temperature heads below 60°F. I don't think I'll ever have a place inside to store wood that gets much above 50°F for 6 months out of the year so I'm not sure the extra energy cost using a dehumidfier provides any more benefit that just a fan especially if your wood is in a warm open room. Of course, outside a fan would work better than a dehumidifier and use lots less energy.

You might put a few splits under a piece of visqueen as a control. That's is what I should have done with my fan experiment as I'm sure the pieces that are out of the path the fan are still drying out relatively faster because of the air movement around them.

The other aspect of the original post is that the outside majority of his wood might be really dry and lights easy. From there, the extra 5% moisture that still hasn't dried one may never notice.

It just seems to me that there are the two extremes expressed here in drying wood, outside for 2-3 years if oak or 24 hours in a kiln with lots of heat and air movement added.  
I think they both work but we can probably improve on the first method considerably without having all the expense of the second method.

Maybe one day when the kids are grown and gone I'll have 3 years worth of wood all stacked and dried ahead of time and won't have to worry about it. In the mean time I'll keep looking for ways to dry wood faster without having to buy a kiln.


----------



## Troutchaser

No, this isn't something I'm going to make a habit of doing.  I'm a first year burner with below average wood.  But for anyone in a pinch that has a place to try this, I think it does help.
And you're right, my split went from 5lb. 9oz. to 5lb. 5oz.  Most of that in the first two weeks.  About 100 ml. of water, give or take.

Next year's white ash is stacked waiting on sunshine.
2012's oak is stacked and waiting on sunshine.


----------



## Battenkiller

23º wet bulb depression at 84ºF = 24% RH in my shop just minutes ago.  Actually was 25º depression at 86º = 20% RH, but I couldn't get the photo shot in time, so this is what I have to show.  Have taken readings with a 31º depression back when outside temps were -15ºF, with a RH of about 8%.  The result of this low humidity can be clearly seen in the photos of splits on the scale.  

- Cherry split: cut down live, split and delivered to me in early November.  Brought in and placed on scale, weighed at 7 lbs, 12 oz. and marked on 12/28/09.  Removed to outside on 2/1/10 weighing 5 lbs, 6 oz.  _Gained_ 1 oz in the last two weeks (I thought it'd gain more).  Weighed just now at 5 lbs, 7 oz for a *total loss of 2 lb, 5 oz* in four weeks. 

- Oak split: cut down live, split and delivered to me in mid-December.  Brought in on 1/13/10.  Placed on scale, weighed at 13 lbs, 15 oz (probably lost several ounces that first day but I can't show that) and marked on 1/14/10.  Weighed just now at 10 lbs, 3 oz for a *total loss of 3 lbs, 12 oz* in four weeks (also proof that oak dries much slower than cherry in the same conditions).


Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.


----------



## Battenkiller

As you know, I use the heat from my stove to drive down the RH in my basement, but if you _really_ want to use valuable electricity to do the job:


http://owic.oregonstate.edu/pubs/dhkilns.pdf


----------



## PNWBurner

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> As you know, I use the heat from my stove to drive down the RH in my basement, but if you _really_ want to use valuable electricity to do the job:
> 
> 
> http://owic.oregonstate.edu/pubs/dhkilns.pdf



Very interesting link.  Thanks!

I notice they went to a lot of trouble not to overdry the wood which presumably wouldn't be a big problem for firewood.


----------



## lexybird

remember kids ..dry wood is NOT seasoned wood


----------



## Battenkiller

lexybird said:
			
		

> remember kids ..dry wood is NOT seasoned wood



Yes, quite true.  I take great pains to season my kiln-dried wood with lemon pepper and butter and a hint of habanero sauce for extra heat.  Otherwise, it just sits there and smolders.


----------



## Swedishchef

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> 23º wet bulb depression at 84ºF = 24% RH in my shop just minutes ago.  Actually was 25º depression at 86º = 20% RH, but I couldn't get the photo shot in time, so this is what I have to show.  Have taken readings with a 31º depression back when outside temps were -15ºF, with a RH of about 8%.  The result of this low humidity can be clearly seen in the photos of splits on the scale.
> 
> - Cherry split: cut down live, split and delivered to me in early November.  Brought in and placed on scale, weighed at 7 lbs, 12 oz. and marked on 12/28/09.  Removed to outside on 2/1/10 weighing 5 lbs, 6 oz.  _Gained_ 1 oz in the last two weeks (I thought it'd gain more).  Weighed just now at 5 lbs, 7 oz for a *total loss of 2 lb, 5 oz* in four weeks.
> 
> - Oak split: cut down live, split and delivered to me in mid-December.  Brought in on 1/13/10.  Placed on scale, weighed at 13 lbs, 15 oz (probably lost several ounces that first day but I can't show that) and marked on 1/14/10.  Weighed just now at 10 lbs, 3 oz for a *total loss of 3 lbs, 12 oz* in four weeks (also proof that oak dries much slower than cherry in the same conditions).
> 
> 
> Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.



Holy crap...someone takes their wood burning seriously! That's a very nice experiment. I love it! I believe the key is keeping the RH down. In the summer, where I live, it can stay in the 80s for weeks on ends. That does not help whatsoever. It takes a good combination of wind, sun (heat) and RH to help wood dry properly. Removing 1-2 of those makes it harder.

Andrew

Andrew


----------



## dave7965

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's obsessed with wood burning ! I just put 4 pieces of fresh cut Oak in my basement which has a dehumidifier in it. In a few weeks I will attempt to burn it and I will post my results....I will be shocked and impressed if this works.
Should we be doing more productive things with our time ? Just asking.


----------



## Battenkiller

The Wood Dog said:
			
		

> Should we be doing more productive things with our time ? Just asking.



I don't ice fish, so "No" is the answer for me.

Don't expect ground breaking results with a dehumidifier in the basement.  Lots of air to dehumidify.  Containing the wood within a smaller volume of air, and heating that air (actually, the dehumidifier will do that) to further lower the RH is the key.

I use a 50 pint (6.25 gallon) per day dehumidifier all summer long so my musical instrument wood doesn't get mildewed and ruined.  Once that RH gets below about 70% in the basement, the dehumidifier gets progressively less moisture out of the air.  I've never been able to drive it below about 45% running it day and night.  After a while it takes a couple of days just to fill the holding tank (about 2 gallons).  Dehumidifiers use a lot of electricity, and as mentioned above, at low temps they stop working altogether (the coils ice up).  Building even a temporary enclosure will make it work much better.


----------



## roddy

welli ice fish,alot,but i also take wood seriously....i have  DE-HUMIDIFICATION DRY KILNS where i work (hardwood lumber wholesale) and we take green wood (fresh cut lumber) and dry it to 6 % moisture in 12 days,so i wouldn,t doubt you could dry some firewood to USEABLE levels in your home with a de-humidifier in fairly short order...dont shoot the messenger....


----------



## LLigetfa

roddy said:
			
		

> we take green wood (fresh cut lumber) and dry it to 6 % moisture in 12 days...


I'm guessing 1 inch thick wood, 2 at the most.  If you split up your firewood into kin'lin then it too could dry as fast or even faster.


----------



## roddy

LLigetfa said:
			
		

> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we take green wood (fresh cut lumber) and dry it to 6 % moisture in 12 days...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing 1 inch thick wood, 2 at the most.  If you split up your firewood into kin'lin then it too could dry as fast or even faster.
Click to expand...


sure,its 1 inch thick down to 6%moisture.....3 to 4 inch pieces to 15-16% moisture takes the same time aprox....i,m not saying its ideal,i,m just saying i believe the op has a valid point and technique,and those who dont wish to embrace technology can take the model t back to the wood pile to check wether or not splits are dry after 5 years or whatever...


----------



## LLigetfa

roddy said:
			
		

> LLigetfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those who dont wish to embrace technology can take the model t back to the wood pile to check wether or not splits are dry after 5 years or whatever...
Click to expand...

It's not about embracing technology, it's about embracing reality.  There is no new technology in a dehumidifier, nature has been dehumidifying the air before the cavemen discovered fire.


----------



## Battenkiller

LLigetfa said:
			
		

> There is no new technology in a dehumidifier, nature has been dehumidifying the air before the cavemen discovered fire.



And doing it pretty cheaply as well.

Here's a cost breakdown from a maker of commercial dehumidification kilns.  Note that the Nyle L50, the smallest unit they make, takes _36 days_ to get 1200 bd.ft. of fresh cut oak down to 7% MC.  Don't even begin to think you'll get the same result by using a room dehumidifier in your basement.  The cost at .07/kWh for drying 1000 bd.ft. (about a cord) is $30.52.  I pay twice that for electric, so it would cost me $60/cord to dry a load, _and_... it would take me six months to do all my wood (5 cord).  Better to burn it green and take the loss in heat output.

Kilns that cost money to run are only suitable for usable lumber and retail firewood operations, not for firewood you plan to burn yourself.  If you're stuck with wet wood, try what I've been doing.  Let nature lower the moisture in the air and then heat that air up once it comes inside your home to drive down the relative humidity.  Since you're already heating with the stove, might as well get the drying done for free.


----------



## ikessky

Electricity is expensive and the sun is free.  Why not just cut the wood early and make sure it's properly dried without having to spend extra money running your dehumidifier?

Admittedly, I run the dehumidifier in the wood room when I throw a new load in from outside.  I didn't get my piles tarped overly well and some of the wood ended up getting a little wet.  So, with the furnace running in that room and the dehumidifier going, everything is usually back to where it needs to be in 24 hours or so.


----------



## skyline

LLigetfa said:
			
		

> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LLigetfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those who dont wish to embrace technology can take the model t back to the wood pile to check wether or not splits are dry after 5 years or whatever...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about embracing technology, it's about embracing reality.  There is no new technology in a dehumidifier, nature has been dehumidifying the air before the cavemen discovered fire.
Click to expand...


It seems these "drying wood" topics generally come back to the same basic discourse. The guys with 3+ years supply will argue that's the only way to "properly" dry wood and the guys who don't are looking for a faster way to dry their wood. For me, I first applaud the ones (LLigetfa etc.) organized and ambitious enough to have plenty of wood racked up ahead of time. For the rest of us, I'm hoping we can find the best and cheapest ways to dry our wood faster.  I and few others won't ignore the fact that kilns can dry wood below our needs in a few days and they aren't even trying to do it as fast as possible but *slowly* enough not to degrade their lumber. The trick is to to apply these same principles of air movement, elevated temperature and lower RH cheaply. For most it doesn't have to be in 2 weeks, but if in 6-12 months it's ready to burn and comes out 5-10% drier than a typical stack job in our area, we're making progress. 

I have no doubt a dry basement with air movement and a furnace will dry wood way faster than outside in my rainy climate. I don't have such a basement but I don't need to have 2 weeks fast either. If I had a way outside to guarantee dry in 6 months I would be "stoked". 

In my experiment with just a fan, my fir split lost 16% moisture (729 ml) and alder 39% (1091 ml) in 7 days for about $0.58 of electricity. (35w x 24 x 7 x .10/kwh). That's still more $ than I want to regularly spend but I suspect I could run the fan about half the time(when the RH is low) and achieve similar results. I figure with accelerated drying of the outside of the wood, the gradient between the wet interior and dry exterior is created and that even on days so humid the split isn't losing moisture, it's still moving from inside towards the edges when it can be lost later.

A meteorologist friend told me that weather stations thermometers are standard at 6' above ground because temperatures are commonly 5-6 degrees cooler (summer time) at ground level in non-windy conditions. I'm guessing that temperature change is mostly in the last foot near the ground. That combined with moisture from the ground could greatly elevate RH during the drying season so I'll stack my wood at least 8" off the ground with visqueen underneath which should keep the RH lower and the temperature higher. With a week of wind at the beginning, I might guarantee 6 months. I'll let you know. Now to add some free solar heat and convection. 

We know dry wood is best but may or may not notice the difference between wood at 22% vs 18% but if drying tips we pick up here can make that difference, it might mean lot less energy wasted.


----------



## roddy

LLigetfa said:
			
		

> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LLigetfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those who dont wish to embrace technology can take the model t back to the wood pile to check wether or not splits are dry after 5 years or whatever...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about embracing technology, it's about embracing reality.  There is no new technology in a dehumidifier, nature has been dehumidifying the air before the cavemen discovered fire.
Click to expand...


but i can control the speed and the amount of de-humidfication with the twist of a dial  nature.....not so much   controlling humidity and the drying process,that there amigo is new technology(compared to cavemen tech anyway)


----------



## EL DRIFTO

it's really humid here during the summer, so once a year, just before i fire up the central AC for the first time, i run the AC system continuously for 24 hours, with the forced air side & cold air return wide open, in the basement alone.

it's all sealed concrete, but it still gets muggy to the point of mildew, but after my 80,000 btu dehumidifier, it's dry. :zip: 

i haven't taken any actual RH measurements...

i'll burn whatever i come across, but i'll make sure it's split as soon as possible i guess.

natural drying seems like it would only happen half the year here & i'll probably let it sit inside as long as i can in the winter, regardless.

my house gets so dry in the winter that a box fan in the basement seems to dry very quickly

i admire the weighting, etc...facts & interesting


----------



## dave7965

I'm not convinced that standard stacking is the best way to season wood...even if on pallets in a sunny spot. The wood is just too close together to get good airflow and drying....especially after rain. This assumes of course that you don't have 2 plus years worth of wood in which case stacking would be just fine. However I typically can only give 6 to 9 months before needing it to burn.  Criss cross stacking is ideal but takes time and wastes space.


----------



## iceman

there can be some truth to the op.  he didnt say what the mc was in his wood he just said it was dry .. we are all trying to figure out/ argue. but everyone here is in single digits of mc for their comparisons/ examples...  maybe his wood is somewhere around 15-20% (prolly closer to 20)  i keep a de humidifier on in the summer and have to empty it every 3days...  winter time it is on max and from dec to end of march gets nothing april starts running a little bit on max...  point i am making is if he is indeed getting 2 gallons the water is coming from somewhere...  he said its birch and maple?  who knows ... due to the fact he hasnt given us a mc we wont know exactly whats going on, to try and compare HIS stuff with....   but if it does work -great if it doesnt really work but he thinks its does- great!


----------



## Battenkiller

skyline said:
			
		

> The guys with 3+ years supply will argue that's the only way to "properly" dry wood



And you can meet them all over on the "How Freakin' Huge Is Your Woodlot?" thread.

My woodlot is less than an acre, mostly groomed lawn.  I have two large maples that could probably provide enough wood for an entire season.  There is a smaller red maple... maybe a cord including the twigs.  Four or five box elders, an American Redbud and numerous elderberry bushes in my "hedgerow".  I have enough space to store about 4 cord, but I burn 5.  I have no truck, no tractor, both boys have moved out and I have many health problems related to doing too much, too soon, too often.  I have _zero_ interest in double or triple handling 15 cord of oak or such to get it "seasoned".  Dry is what I want.  I get it in an unconventional manner, but my autumn procured wood burns as well as any I've kept for three years once I've sufficiently tortured it.

I think there needs to be a much bigger discussion of alternative wood drying methods, and much experimentation and data collection.  Skyline has done a real fine job of documenting his method, and I think it would be great if we all stopped telling each other how to do it "right" and looked at the problem objectively.  I've thrown my ideas out, even though I realize that few folks have the same setup and situation that I do.  Doesn't mean they don't have to solve the same problem.  A group effort here could yield lots of hard data that could be used to figure out what really works, and when.


----------



## iceman

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> skyline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guys with 3+ years supply will argue that's the only way to "properly" dry wood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can meet them all over on the "How Freakin' Huge Is Your Woodlot?" thread.
> 
> My woodlot is less than an acre, mostly groomed lawn.  I have two large maples that could probably provide enough wood for an entire season.  There is a smaller red maple... maybe a cord including the twigs.  Four or five box elders, an American Redbud and numerous elderberry bushes in my "hedgerow".  I have enough space to store about 4 cord, but I burn 5.  I have no truck, no tractor, both boys have moved out and I have many health problems related to doing too much, too soon, too often.  I have _zero_ interest in double or triple handling 15 cord of oak or such to get it "seasoned".  Dry is what I want.  I get it in an unconventional manner, but my autumn procured wood burns as well as any I've kept for three years once I've sufficiently tortured it.
> 
> I think there needs to be a much bigger discussion of alternative wood drying methods, and much experimentation and data collection.  Skyline has done a real fine job of documenting his method, and I think it would be great if we all stopped telling each other how to do it "right" and looked at the problem objectively.  I've thrown my ideas out, even though I realize that few folks have the same setup and situation that I do.  Doesn't mean they don't have to solve the same problem.  A group effort here could yield lots of hard data that could be used to figure out what really works, and when.
Click to expand...




not a bad idea at all we could start a thread with ideas/input - supported by some kind of data
+1 i am in


----------



## dave7965

Hey Iceman, what is your "unconventional manner " ? I'm always looking for new ideas.


----------



## iceman

The Wood Dog said:
			
		

> Hey Iceman, what is your "unconventional manner " ? I'm always looking for new ideas.



still thinking..................
maybe a magnifiyng glass pointed at a mirror pointed towards my stack for a few hrs in the morning and at evening.. hopefully it wont burn!


----------



## ikessky

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> My woodlot is less than an acre, mostly groomed lawn.  I have two large maples that could probably provide enough wood for an entire season.  There is a smaller red maple... maybe a cord including the twigs.  Four or five box elders, an American Redbud and numerous elderberry bushes in my "hedgerow".  I have enough space to store about 4 cord, but I burn 5.  I have no truck, no tractor, both boys have moved out and I have many health problems related to doing too much, too soon, too often.  I have _zero_ interest in double or triple handling 15 cord of oak or such to get it "seasoned".  Dry is what I want.  I get it in an unconventional manner, but my autumn procured wood burns as well as any I've kept for three years once I've sufficiently tortured it.
> 
> I think there needs to be a much bigger discussion of alternative wood drying methods, and much experimentation and data collection.  Skyline has done a real fine job of documenting his method, and I think it would be great if we all stopped telling each other how to do it "right" and looked at the problem objectively.  I've thrown my ideas out, even though I realize that few folks have the same setup and situation that I do.  Doesn't mean they don't have to solve the same problem.  A group effort here could yield lots of hard data that could be used to figure out what really works, and when.


"Dry" is a relative term.  Without taking before and after moisture readings of your splits, there is no accurate way of telling when they are at 20% or less.  I'm glad for you that you found a way that works for you, but I would caution anyone from stating that it is a sure fire way.  I use a dehumidifier for a few days after I throw a fresh load into my furnace room.  That, coupled with the radiant heat coming off the furnace, seems to quickly get my wood back to where it was in the fall.

I'm all for unconventional, but sometimes, the old stand-by is just the best way to do things.  Half the sites I go to, guys are trying to find out how to make their 4.3L engines run as strong as 350's.  On the other half, guys are trying to find out how to make their MS290 run like a a MS361.  There are those that will argue to the death that it's possible and then there are those that will argue to the death that it's not possible.  Then there are those with a voice of reason that say that it may be possible, but is it really worth it?  To be honest, that's where I'm at with this post.  I'm sure it's possible to dry wood different ways, but it's not worth it to me.  I have time, space, and access to lots of wood.  I'm not going to pay for something that nature does for free for me.  I have a hard enough time keeping the humidity down in my basement in the summer and fall months.  I'm not about to add to the problem when I don't have to.


----------



## Battenkiller

ikessky said:
			
		

> "Dry" is a relative term.  Without taking before and after moisture readings of your splits, there is no accurate way of telling when they are at 20% or less.  I'm glad for you that you found a way that works for you, but I would caution anyone from stating that it is a sure fire way.



"Seasoned" is a much more relative term than "dry".  At least I can quantify "dry", but all "seasoned" tells me is how long the wood has been cut.  After all the reports of chimney fires in the Northeast due to improperly seasoned wood caused by the extraordinarily rainy summer we've had, I would really question seasoning time alone as an indicator of final moisture content.

There are so many variables in the outdoors, so many wood types, so many sizes to buck and split to, so many ways to stack, etc.   I never stated that my method is a "sure fire" way to dry firewood, but I can guarantee that if someone had an identical setup as I do and burned the way I do and had their wood processed in the way I do and treated it the way I do, it would be quite dry when placed in the box.  It would ignite right away and burn very hot and create little creosote and produce tons of heat - all of the magical things that properly "seasoned" wood will do, without the loss in fuel content due to microbial action that always occurs in wood that has been sitting in the outdoors for years.

Humans have been intentionally burning wood for thousands of years, almost every bit of that time without the aid of a moisture meter.  IMO, if you need a moisture meter to tell you if your wood is ready to burn, you don't yet know what you're doing.  Heck, you may have a cheap unit (or not know how to properly use a good one), and end up putting wet wood in your firebox and scratching your head about why you can't get any heat out of the stove even though you are using "well seasoned" fuel.  

I encourage all types of experimentation, because even failure teaches.  Eventually, if you keep hands alert, and your eyes, ears, nose and mind open, you will arrive at a point where it's all second nature.  Experience alone is the final determining factor in achieving and assessing dry fuel.  You won't find that on the Internet or in a book, and you certainly can't buy it.


----------



## ikessky

I, like you, have developed my own way of drying and burning.  Our ways just happen to be different.  I do not own a moisture meter and will not be buying one either.  I am one of the fortunate ones that has ample room in the country that I can leave a few years worth of wood stacked up.

I applaud you for experimenting and finding a way that works for you.  If you are happy and warm, what does it really matter what I, or anyone, says?  Heck, I burn in a pre-EPA wood furnace.  If you would ask around here, 95% of the people would tell you how terrible that is.  You know what?  I stay warm and found a way to burn safely and as efficiently as my equipment allows.  That's good enough for me right now.  You are correct that if someone had an identical situation and set up as you, they could follow your advice.  How often is that the case though?  I will still maintain that better evidence of your experiment would be showing before and after moisture readings.  That doesn't mean I'm calling you a liar.  Just that I would be interested in seeing the actual numbers.

Again, we just have a difference of opinion.  Doesn't make either of us bad people.


----------



## Battenkiller

ikessky said:
			
		

> Heck, I burn in a pre-EPA wood furnace.  If you would ask around here, 95% of the people would tell you how terrible that is.
> 
> I will still maintain that better evidence of your experiment would be showing before and after moisture readings.  That doesn't mean I'm calling you a liar.  Just that I would be interested in seeing the actual numbers.




I burn in an old "smoke dragon" myself (although I've rarely seen any smoke coming out the chimney), so I feel your pain here in EPA land.  Newbies don't have much of a choice, and I suppose I'd be pretty righteous myself after I just spent five grand on a new installation.

It's a little too late in the season to give you before and after numbers since all of my wood is now basically dry.  I'd hardly call what I do an "experiment" since I've been doing it successfully for about 20 years in this place.  I have already stated that I would be interested in doing a controlled experiment next season if others are inclined to do the same.  I'm a very curious person, and there are many aspects of these discussions that have brought out the latent scientist in me.  I would like to quantify exactly how much firewood dries from the ends compared to the sides, and what the differences between species, split lengths and diameters are.  I would like to establish controlled drying rates at specific temps and relative humidities, and to use this info to create charts with drying curves for different wood types.  I would like to determine how much effect air movement has compared to RH, how much "real world" heat is lost by burning wet wood vs. dry, what flue temps eliminate creosote buildup.  Many other things as well.

Therefore, I have decide to create a woodburning research foundation to investigate all of these things.  But research is not cheap, so I will be encouraging donations made directly to the PayPal account of my foundation.  Ample amounts of wood of various species will also be required, so it would be a big help if folks could drop off samples (1/2 face cord minimum, please stack neatly) so that I can process them and use them in carefully controlled burns in the foundation stove. I will also be needing some genuine "seasoned" wood for comparison purposes.  Quads would be the man to provide this, but folks will have to pitch in to help him out with the gas between Wisconsin and New York.

A volunteer chimney sweep would also be extremely helpful in order to gather chimney deposits on a weekly basis for evaluation. 

Of course, all of this data would be useless to the owners of the new EPA stoves if it was gathered from burns taking place inside my old smoke dragon, so I will be needing a new Jotul F500 "Oslo" so that I can create an accurate baseline that would be applicable to these users.  I'm sure that with the many professionals that visit and contribute to this site, there will be no problem procuring a suitable stove for the research.  A floor demo would probably be fine, as well as a suitable SS liner for my decrepit old masonry chimney.

Oh... a couple cases of SuperCedar fire starters would be nice as well.


----------



## ikessky

Very nice!  However, to successfully quantify your results, you will need someone to duplicate the experiments.  Therefore, I will sign on to help you out.  I will procure my own wood of varying species, but I will need to have someone donate a Caddy or VaporFire furnace.

On a serious note, if you do happen to get numbers next year, please post them.  I think there are quite a few people out there that would find it interesting.  I'm still young and ambitious enough to process skads of firewood, but I know that there are many out there with age and health conditions that can't do what I currently can.


----------



## EL DRIFTO

it seems to me that weighing is more accurate of a piece thrown in the stove, than a surface reading

anyway, i'd like to suggest the RH of the air going into the stove to oxygenate the fire @ 0 RH, 0 F, in the dead of winter as another variable to the ignition process

still learning, keep it coming  :thumbsup:


----------



## quads

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> Quads would be the man to provide this, but folks will have to pitch in to help him out with the gas between Wisconsin and New York.


I'll just have zapny tell the airplane to drop some off!


----------



## skyline

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> ikessky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Dry" is a relative term.  Without taking before and after moisture readings of your splits, there is no accurate way of telling when they are at 20% or less. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Seasoned" is a much more relative term than "dry".  At least I can quantify "dry", but all "seasoned" tells me is how long the wood has been cut.  After all the reports of chimney fires in the Northeast due to improperly seasoned wood caused by the extraordinarily rainy summer we've had, I would really question seasoning time alone as an indicator of final moisture content.
> 
> There are so many variables in the outdoors, so many wood types, so many sizes to buck and split to, so many ways to stack, etc.   I never stated that my method is a "sure fire" way to dry firewood, but I can guarantee that if someone had an identical setup as I do and burned the way I do and had their wood processed in the way I do and treated it the way I do, it would be quite dry when placed in the box.  It would ignite right away and burn very hot and create little creosote and produce tons of heat - all of the magical things that properly "seasoned" wood will do, without the loss in fuel content due to microbial action that always occurs in wood that has been sitting in the outdoors for years.
> 
> Humans have been intentionally burning wood for thousands of years, almost every bit of that time without the aid of a moisture meter.  IMO, if you need a moisture meter to tell you if your wood is ready to burn, you don't yet know what you're doing.  Heck, you may have a cheap unit (or not know how to properly use a good one), and end up putting wet wood in your firebox and scratching your head about why you can't get any heat out of the stove even though you are using "well seasoned" fuel.
> 
> I encourage all types of experimentation, because even failure teaches.  Eventually, if you keep hands alert, and your eyes, ears, nose and mind open, you will arrive at a point where it's all second nature.  Experience alone is the final determining factor in achieving and assessing dry fuel.  You won't find that on the Internet or in a book, and you certainly can't buy it.
Click to expand...


Battenkiller, I appreciate your efforts and wish I had your setup. Sorry for the late reply especially after you started having fun with your experiment ideas. I'll sign up as the West coast representative. 

Ikessky, I don't have a moisture meter either and figure from what I've read they have enough errors, that without more experience than I want to have with them I'll stick to the scale which I know is right. The trick is to take one (or more) representative split in length and weight, weigh it and then totally dry it completely. Stick it next to your stove with a big "Do not Burn" sign. You'll know it's dry when you can stick it in the convection oven over night and it doesn't lose any more weight.  Once you get it to this point you'll know the moisture content that it started at and be able to monitor other pieces along the way. Weight of water lost/ Dry weight. (This is why the moisture content of some wood can be over 100%. Just assume that same starting moisture contents for your other splits that weigh differently at the start. This is different than what I figured in my moisture lost calcs as I used weight / original wet weight since I didn't yet know it's totally dry weight and was more interested in seeing just how much moister was lost by the fans.

Once this is done you can monitor any split you originally weighed and calculate its moisture content by assuming the same starting moisture content.  Battenkiller, I love your classic scale but you'll save yourself headaches if you switch to a kilogram scale where you're not mixing pounds and ounces and every gram lost equals a milliliter of water and spreadsheets can do all the work of calculating moisture lost to BTU's saved. There is definitely a reason scientists use the metric system. They are lazy, I know ;-) 

As I have said before, my ultimate goal is to have a wood shed that takes advantage of what I learn here and through experiments to dry the wood faster than it might otherwise. If I'm going to build it, I want to do it right.

 An interesting thing I read on the kiln operations is that they use the same size stickers between boards so that the air flow from fans is roughly equal so equal drying takes place but also if the stickers are too thick, >1",  the air flow is to slow and drying slows down. Not necessarily intuitive.


----------



## Battenkiller

skyline said:
			
		

> Stick it next to your stove with a big "Do not Burn" sign. You'll know it's dry when you can stick it in the convection oven over night and it doesn't lose any more weight.  Once this is done you can monitor any split you originally weighed and calculate its moisture content by assuming the same starting moisture content.



Skyline, you can leave that split next to the stove until the cows come home.  You won't be able to drive off the last bit of water without raising the temp of the wood up to 212º.  Most you'll get it down to is about 6% MC, and that will take weeks.  For analysis purposes, you need to be able to quickly get it down to 0% MC.  

Best way is to cut thin cross-sections and weigh them on a balance (or a cheapo kitchen dietary scale that weighs in grams).  Then put them in the oven at 220º or so for 24 hours, or until they stop losing weight.  The same thing can be done very quickly in a microwave oven if the samples are small, but you have to be careful not to go too fast (use many short bursts on "high") or you will set the things on fire from the inside.  How would I know that? :red:  


Although you really have no choice but to assume all splits have the same starting moisture content, nothing could be further from the truth.   Even within an individual tree, green MC can vary considerably.  Best thing would be to determine the starting MC of a large number of randomly selected pieces using the oven method, then averaging them all.  My band saw would make quick work of acquiring these samples.



> Battenkiller, I love your classic scale but you'll save yourself headaches if you switch to a kilogram scale where you're not mixing pounds and ounces and every gram lost equals a milliliter of water and spreadsheets can do all the work of calculating moisture lost to BTU's saved. There is definitely a reason scientists use the metric system. They are lazy, I know ;-)



Oh, I do grams, even milligrams when needed.  I scooped up an analytical balance and a triple-beam gram scale when the lab I was working in got lazy and went to all digital scales.  The scale in the photo is just an old produce scale I use to measure ultralight canoes (check out the photo) while I'm building them.  I'll definitely use metric weights/measures come data collection/analysis time.  Then I'll have to convert everything to pounds so I can present the results in BTUs to the woodburning set, but I'll use a spread sheet to do that when the time comes.


----------



## CrawfordCentury

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> Humans have been intentionally burning wood for thousands of years, almost every bit of that time without the aid of a moisture meter.  IMO, if you need a moisture meter to tell you if your wood is ready to burn, you don't yet know what you're doing.  Heck, you may have a cheap unit (or not know how to properly use a good one), and end up putting wet wood in your firebox and scratching your head about why you can't get any heat out of the stove even though you are using "well seasoned" fuel.



Precisely. It's firewood. Not rocket science. Humans have been making fire for a long time. No need to go poking about your firewood with a moisture reader like space aliens conducting rectal probe research on humans.

It's firewood.

It's so easy...even a caveman can do it.


----------



## skyline

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> skyline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stick it next to your stove with a big "Do not Burn" sign. You'll know it's dry when you can stick it in the convection oven over night and it doesn't lose any more weight.  Once this is done you can monitor any split you originally weighed and calculate its moisture content by assuming the same starting moisture content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyline, you can leave that split next to the stove until the cows come home.  You won't be able to drive off the last bit of water without raising the temp of the wood up to 212º.  Most you'll get it down to is about 6% MC, and that will take weeks.  For analysis purposes, you need to be able to quickly get it down to 0% MC.
> 
> 
> Although you really have no choice but to assume all splits have the same starting moisture content, nothing could be further from the truth.   Even within an individual tree, green MC can vary considerably.  Best thing would be to determine the starting MC of a large number of randomly selected pieces using the oven method, then averaging them all.  My band saw would make quick work of acquiring these samples.
> 
> 
> Oh, I do grams, even milligrams when needed.  I scooped up an analytical balance and a triple-beam gram scale when the lab I was working in got lazy and went to all digital scales.  The scale in the photo is just an old produce scale I use to measure ultralight canoes (check out the photo) while I'm building them.  I'll definitely use metric weights/measures come data collection/analysis time.  Then I'll have to convert everything to pounds so I can present the results in BTUs to the woodburning set, but I'll use a spread sheet to do that when the time comes.
Click to expand...



It's bad enough you have the perfect firewood drying setup, but now you have to go tease me with my boat in your basement too! I'd rather do all the experiments so you use your bandsaw building my canoe %-P . Just how light is it? 

Yeah I knew it wouldn't dry a split completely next to the stove until you get tired of waiting and start using the oven. I might skip the microwave and just put the wood in the oven when I want to add "wood seasoning" to my bread. While it would be nice to know the absolute dry weight right away, I can get away monitoring water loss for several weeks if not months before knowing the dry weight to calculate its moisture content correctly. I'm not really worried about the variability in my splits as long as I pick some representative of the pile or at least bracket it. I'm mostly interested in how the pile progresses in drying under different storage conditions. For that matter I could probably get away with just using published moisture contents for my species although I'm sure that varies a bunch.

While the overall trend is quick at first and then a gradual slow down in moisture loss, I'm thinking it is somewhat episodic under outdoor conditions. A couple of calm wet days and the splits might lose nothing or actually gain a bit, but some dry windy ones and they lose a bunch and perhaps every night in certain months they may lose very little. I'm hoping the right shed design will always keep them dry, allow good air flow and add some solar heat during the day and perhaps some convective airflow during the night as well. Reminds me of those boot dryers. 

I'm just suspicious that wood in a common setup with tarp over the top with bare ground below, or even in a heap hausen isn't drying for much of the time it's stacked and that is why it takes so long. A few more guys out there with scales could shed some light on this. A cheap place to get them is here:  http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/ 

Cheers to all and keep sharing your data.


----------



## Battenkiller

skyline said:
			
		

> While the overall trend is quick at first and then a gradual slow down in moisture loss, I'm thinking it is somewhat episodic under outdoor conditions. A couple of calm wet days and the splits might lose nothing or actually gain a bit, but some dry windy ones and they lose a bunch and perhaps every night in certain months they may lose very little.
> 
> I'm just suspicious that wood in a common setup with tarp over the top with bare ground below, or even in a heap hausen isn't drying for much of the time it's stacked and that is why it takes so long.



Sky, I think your thinking here is spot on.  There is precious little good drying time in an average day, and the number of good drying days is rather limited in a given season.  No wonder folks doubt the results of experiments that run counter to their personal experience.  If it took three years to get your oak ready to burn then, by golly, that's just how long it takes.  Makes me wonder why so many folks readily embrace the current stove technology but don't trust that advances can also be made in fuel processing.  We all accept the use of fractional distillation of petroleum instead of putting straight crude oil into our $30K automobiles.  Why not allow for improvements in wood drying technology that would allow all to use a consistently high quality product in their $3000 high tech stoves.



> It's bad enough you have the perfect firewood drying setup, but now you have to go tease me with my boat in your basement too! Just how light is it?



That canoe was a small 11' Adirondack pack canoe that weighed an even 20 pounds when completed.  Here's a shot of my wife paddling my granddaughter around on an ADK pond.  The baby, at 22 pounds, weighed more than the boat that carried them both.

And since this is a firewood thread, check out the wood on the deck of the canoe.  It is from a burl-figured cherry crotch that came in my firewood delivery.  Every year I accumulate a bunch of interesting wood that strikes me somehow.  This year it was about a dozen splits of tightly-figured fiddleback hickory, which may end up as quarter-thwarts in my next few canoes.


----------



## iceman

skyline said:
			
		

> Battenkiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skyline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stick it next to your stove with a big "Do not Burn" sign. You'll know it's dry when you can stick it in the convection oven over night and it doesn't lose any more weight.  Once this is done you can monitor any split you originally weighed and calculate its moisture content by assuming the same starting moisture content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyline, you can leave that split next to the stove until the cows come home.  You won't be able to drive off the last bit of water without raising the temp of the wood up to 212º.  Most you'll get it down to is about 6% MC, and that will take weeks.  For analysis purposes, you need to be able to quickly get it down to 0% MC.
> 
> 
> Although you really have no choice but to assume all splits have the same starting moisture content, nothing could be further from the truth.   Even within an individual tree, green MC can vary considerably.  Best thing would be to determine the starting MC of a large number of randomly selected pieces using the oven method, then averaging them all.  My band saw would make quick work of acquiring these samples.
> 
> 
> Oh, I do grams, even milligrams when needed.  I scooped up an analytical balance and a triple-beam gram scale when the lab I was working in got lazy and went to all digital scales.  The scale in the photo is just an old produce scale I use to measure ultralight canoes (check out the photo) while I'm building them.  I'll definitely use metric weights/measures come data collection/analysis time.  Then I'll have to convert everything to pounds so I can present the results in BTUs to the woodburning set, but I'll use a spread sheet to do that when the time comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's bad enough you have the perfect firewood drying setup, but now you have to go tease me with my boat in your basement too! I'd rather do all the experiments so you use your bandsaw building my canoe %-P . Just how light is it?
> 
> Yeah I knew it wouldn't dry a split completely next to the stove until you get tired of waiting and start using the oven. I might skip the microwave and just put the wood in the oven when I want to add "wood seasoning" to my bread. While it would be nice to know the absolute dry weight right away, I can get away monitoring water loss for several weeks if not months before knowing the dry weight to calculate its moisture content correctly. I'm not really worried about the variability in my splits as long as I pick some representative of the pile or at least bracket it. I'm mostly interested in how the pile progresses in drying under different storage conditions. For that matter I could probably get away with just using published moisture contents for my species although I'm sure that varies a bunch.
> 
> While the overall trend is quick at first and then a gradual slow down in moisture loss, I'm thinking it is somewhat episodic under outdoor conditions. A couple of calm wet days and the splits might lose nothing or actually gain a bit, but some dry windy ones and they lose a bunch and perhaps every night in certain months they may lose very little. I'm hoping the right shed design will always keep them dry, allow good air flow and add some solar heat during the day and perhaps some convective airflow during the night as well. Reminds me of those boot dryers.
> 
> I'm just suspicious that wood in a common setup with tarp over the top with bare ground below, or even in a heap hausen isn't drying for much of the time it's stacked and that is why it takes so long. A few more guys out there with scales could shed some light on this. A cheap place to get them is here:  http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/
> 
> Cheers to all and keep sharing your data.
Click to expand...



i may be off the deep end here, but wouldnt the best shed allow airflow from all sides, but instead of shingle roofing use the clear plastic ones? this would allow more sun on the wood?  while maximizing airflow?


----------



## ikessky

skyline said:
			
		

> Ikessky, I don't have a moisture meter either and figure from what I've read they have enough errors, that without more experience than I want to have with them I'll stick to the scale which I know is right. The trick is to take one (or more) representative split in length and weight, weigh it and then totally dry it completely. Stick it next to your stove with a big "Do not Burn" sign. You'll know it's dry when you can stick it in the convection oven over night and it doesn't lose any more weight.  Once you get it to this point you'll know the moisture content that it started at and be able to monitor other pieces along the way. Weight of water lost/ Dry weight. (This is why the moisture content of some wood can be over 100%. Just assume that same starting moisture contents for your other splits that weigh differently at the start. This is different than what I figured in my moisture lost calcs as I used weight / original wet weight since I didn't yet know it's totally dry weight and was more interested in seeing just how much moister was lost by the fans.


As I said before, I find what you guys are doing interesting, but I'm not about to starting doing it myself.  I've got time and space, so I'll let nature continue to do my drying for me.  People have also been doing that for years!


----------



## skyline

ikessky said:
			
		

> skyline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ikessky, I don't have a moisture meter either and figure from what I've read they have enough errors, that without more experience than I want to have with them I'll stick to the scale which I know is right. The trick is to take one (or more) representative split in length and weight, weigh it and then totally dry it completely. Stick it next to your stove with a big "Do not Burn" sign. You'll know it's dry when you can stick it in the convection oven over night and it doesn't lose any more weight.  Once you get it to this point you'll know the moisture content that it started at and be able to monitor other pieces along the way. Weight of water lost/ Dry weight. (This is why the moisture content of some wood can be over 100%. Just assume that same starting moisture contents for your other splits that weigh differently at the start. This is different than what I figured in my moisture lost calcs as I used weight / original wet weight since I didn't yet know it's totally dry weight and was more interested in seeing just how much moister was lost by the fans.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, I find what you guys are doing interesting, but I'm not about to starting doing it myself.  I've got time and space, so I'll let nature continue to do my drying for me.  People have also been doing that for years!
Click to expand...


ikessky No Problem on that, every experiment needs a control ;-)  And as I said before, hats off to you guys who are 3 years ahead on their wood supply. Out of curiosity, do you ever put plastic down as a vapor barrier beneath your stacks. My experience points to this improving drying especially the bottom layers, as long as it doesn't become a low point that collects water. I believe black plastic lowers the RH significantly during wetter periods and raises the temperature around the pile on sunny still days as well, but I don't see it many pictures of stacks on here.



			
				iceman said:
			
		

> i may be off the deep end here, but wouldnt the best shed allow airflow from all sides, but instead of shingle roofing use the clear plastic ones? this would allow more sun on the wood?  while maximizing airflow?



+1 on that Iceman, I definitely am planning on using the clear glazing material for my shed. I'm surprised I don't see it in more of the sheds pictured on this forum The better stuff tends to be pricey and you generally need an extra layer of purlins running across your rafters to support it which may be more than most want to do. 

I am a firm believer in maximizing air flow but I'm think on days like this morning which we have a lot of, where visibility is 100', temp. is within 2 °F of dew point (we're in the fog or a cloud, hard to tell which) an open sided shed wouldn't be better than one closed up. If it was closed up and maybe 5-10 degrees warmer than outside, that would drop the RH quite a bit. Proper placement of venting and slight air circulation might significantly increase the total # of drying hours. And I think that is really the key, increasing the "actual" number of hours the wood is drying and not just sitting at or very close to equilibrium.  

Kilns show and others posted here suggest a few hundred hours are all that are needed to dry wood with extra energy added. Divide that over 3 months and the extra energy is around background levels. Ultimately this should be easy to figure out with a computer hooked to a scale monitoring the weight of a split 24/7. Along with temp. RH and wind and one should get good idea of what is changing moisture loss the most under different conditions and how much of the "seasoning" period is really effective or not. If Battenkiller weren't so busy building my canoe he would get right on that ;-P  Also, as he pointed out, I'm sure I have lost BTU's from decay over drying for longer periods.

For now, I'll plan on open sided shed, clear glazing on the roof, plastic vapor barrier on the bottom and some additional solar assistance (fan, heat or both).  To repeat Ikessky I think, it's not "new technology",  the same principals nature has been drying wood for years with, but whether we chose to harness them and improve on it is what I'm after.


----------



## ikessky

I haven't put any plastic down, but I think this year I'm going to make some spacers out of rebar to lift the wood off the ground an inch or so.


----------



## skyline

ikessky said:
			
		

> I haven't put any plastic down, but I think this year I'm going to make some spacers out of rebar to lift the wood off the ground an inch or so.



Now don't go modifying our "slow" control  It will be harder for us to show any improvement over traditional methods. If you can increase the height a few more inches closer to 6 you may remove most of the ground effect in lower temps and higher RH. This is just my feeling no hard proof, although sometimes I see a "dew" line about this high in the grass. I think that along with the plastic will make a difference . I figure every morning I have dew on the grass I've have had hours my wood wasn't drying.


----------



## ikessky

The area is on top of a hill too.  Once I take down a couple more trees, the piles will get wind no matter what direction it is blowing.  If I could blacktop the area, that would make it even more ideal!  ;-)


----------



## LLigetfa

skyline said:
			
		

> I see a "dew" line about *this *high ...


Ja, one might be surprised just how high (thick) the layer of dew can be.  I would use something much taller than the thickness of rebar to elevate the stacks.  I often put down a bottom course of junk Poplar rounds and stack the good stuff on top of it.  Sometimes I build a base out of Poplar poles as well.


----------



## ikessky

I never said the rebar was going to be laid on the ground.  ;-)   If time permits, I'm going to weld up some "racks" that hold the stacks about 4"-6" off the ground.  Being on the top of a hill though, the ground never stays very wet, so I'm not overly concerned if I get this done or not.


----------



## skyline

ikessky said:
			
		

> The area is on top of a hill too.  Once I take down a couple more trees, the piles will get wind no matter what direction it is blowing.  If I could blacktop the area, that would make it even more ideal!  ;-)



Ikessky, sounds like a great setup, pretty soon your wood will be dry in a few weeks too ;-) 

I actually used my asphalt last summer and weighed a few pieces and was shocked by the pounds of water lost in a couple of days. It was before I started recording all this. They were big splits but it has got me thinking ever since. Perhaps more realistic for me, I want to try black metal roofing that doubles as a vapor barrier under my pile and heat radiator. If I extend it out from under the pile a few feet to the south it should add a few degrees. Maybe put the part our front under a glass frame and the heat should transfer to the cooler metal under the pile nicely. I think aluminum would be best, just need to find some large scraps for free.  It would probably work best under no wind conditions which covers the time the wind isn't drying your pile out. I would think this would sure help out the heap hausen stacks as well. Anyone want to try?


----------



## robsam

How Can I Dehumidify my Basement ?My basement is full of humidity and I have fear that me or my family member's health can be affected because of it. Someone has suggested me to buy a Basement Dehumidifier from getting rid of this humidity . Anyone can suggest me a good one ?Any other ways by which I can get my basement dry quickly ? Please Suggest .


----------



## EL DRIFTO

EL DRIFTO said:
			
		

> it's really humid here during the summer, so once a year, just before i fire up the central AC for the first time, i run the AC system continuously for 24 hours, with the forced air side & cold air return wide open, in the basement alone.
> 
> it's all sealed concrete, but it still gets muggy to the point of mildew, but after my 80,000 btu dehumidifier, it's dry. :zip:
> 
> i haven't taken any actual RH measurements...



i have some vents open in the "unfinished" basement which keeps it nice & dry, like the rest of the house, once i annually dehumidify.

i also duct my electric clothes dryer inside during the winter, it may be saturating the basement before i route it back outside every year...


----------



## Battenkiller

Robert Samual said:
			
		

> How Can I Dehumidify my Basement ?My basement is full of humidity and I have fear that me or my family member's health can be affected because of it. Someone has suggested me to buy a Basement Dehumidifier from getting rid of this humidity . Anyone can suggest me a good one ?Any other ways by which I can get my basement dry quickly ? Please Suggest .



Number one rule is don't try to "air out" the basement in the summer by opening the doors.  The cooler air inside the basement can't hold as much moisture and it condenses on the cool surfaces, making mold and mildew a big problem.  Keep the basement doors closed in the summer.

Yes, without a doubt the dehumidifiers you linked to will do the job perfectly.  You may not even need one that big.  My dehumidifier is only rated at 55 pints/day and it does the job perfectly for me.  Takes about a week to get all the moisture out of the cement and the floor joists and sub-flooring overhead, but then it is relatively easy to maintain as long as you empty the bucket every day (or rig a drain hose to the outside).  Mine runs full-time on high.

Best thing about the bigger units is that they are probably more efficient and will produce less heat for a given volume of water removed.  These things create a lot of heat, and they use plenty of electricity.  My July electric bill is higher than my January one, mostly because of the dehumidifier running 24/7.  The bigger units won't ice up on you as much, either.


----------



## iceman

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> Robert Samual said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Can I Dehumidify my Basement ?My basement is full of humidity and I have fear that me or my family member's health can be affected because of it. Someone has suggested me to buy a Basement Dehumidifier from getting rid of this humidity . Anyone can suggest me a good one ?Any other ways by which I can get my basement dry quickly ? Please Suggest .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Number one rule is don't try to "air out" the basement in the summer by opening the doors.  The cooler air inside the basement can't hold as much moisture and it condenses on the cool surfaces, making mold and mildew a big problem.  Keep the basement doors closed in the summer.
> 
> Yes, without a doubt the dehumidifiers you linked to will do the job perfectly.  You may not even need one that big.  My dehumidifier is only rated at 55 pints/day and it does the job perfectly for me.  Takes about a week to get all the moisture out of the cement and the floor joists and sub-flooring overhead, but then it is relatively easy to maintain as long as you empty the bucket every day (or rig a drain hose to the outside).  Mine runs full-time on high.
> 
> Best thing about the bigger units is that they are probably more efficient and will produce less heat for a given volume of water removed.  These things create a lot of heat, and they use plenty of electricity.  My July electric bill is higher than my January one, mostly because of the dehumidifier running 24/7.  The bigger units won't ice up on you as much, either.
Click to expand...




but holy toledo batman!  those things are expensive!... i will stick with my little one for $100 wow! those are expensive


----------



## Battenkiller

Yeah, they're out of consideration for me as well.  They really can crank moisture out of the air compared to the W-Mart variety like I have.  I saw that they rate them very honestly, basically how much water are they removing at 60% RH.  The cheap portable ones appear to be rated for use at 100% RH, which explains why I could never get mine to do anything beyond 45% RH.  It ain't too hard to remove water from saturated air.  It becomes more difficult the lower the RH gets.


----------



## geoxman

I used a Lowes unit that I drilled a hole in the collection cup. I then installed a uniseal and ran some 3/4 inch pvc from the cup to the drain. I never have to empty it and it works just fine


----------



## iceman

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> Yeah, they're out of consideration for me as well.  They really can crank moisture out of the air compared to the W-Mart variety like I have.  I saw that they rate them very honestly, basically how much water are they removing at 60% RH.  The cheap portable ones appear to be rated for use at 100% RH, which explains why I could never get mine to do anything beyond 45% RH.  It ain't too hard to remove water from saturated air.  It becomes more difficult the lower the RH gets.



 i measure mine with one of the wether station thingys.. in the summer though i also run a fan in the room, so between the 2 i stay in the high 20s-30s.. if i turn them off i can get to 50 in a couple of days....  so our walmart dehumidifiers do work.... also if it gets to fifty i run the ac for for about an hour which helps bring it down


----------



## KevinM

skyline said:
			
		

> ikessky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The area is on top of a hill too.  Once I take down a couple more trees, the piles will get wind no matter what direction it is blowing.  If I could blacktop the area, that would make it even more ideal!  ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ikessky, sounds like a great setup, pretty soon your wood will be dry in a few weeks too ;-)
> 
> I actually used my asphalt last summer and weighed a few pieces and was shocked by the pounds of water lost in a couple of days. It was before I started recording all this. They were big splits but it has got me thinking ever since.
Click to expand...


My favourite place to stack wood is on the asphalt driveway on the south side of our house.  Between the asphalt and the bricks it can be rather warm there after sunset.  Why the previous owner had an air conditioner installed there is beyond me.

Anecdotaly wood stacked on the east side of the house up on the deck doesn't do well compared to on a pallet on the grass.

Kevin.


----------



## MyFyrByrd

As I continue to read posts on this site , I think about the Mythbusters and how they would never have a problem coming up with new ideas to test for their episodes.


----------



## BillLion

I was wondering if a humidifier would "finish" nearly seasoned wood, Google it and found this dead thread! 

I wonder 3&1/2 years late if anyone here has an opinions/experience re: this...


----------



## Jags

It is pretty well accepted that wind is the biggest influence followed by heat/sun.  The ambient humidity level obviously plays a part too, but I think you would be better off with an extra couple of weeks in the dry fall air than you would be stacking in a basement and running a de-humi.  Although I would expect the bugs to love a new environment.


----------



## roddy

BillLion said:


> I was wondering if a humidifier would "finish" nearly seasoned wood, Google it and found this dead thread!
> 
> I wonder 3&1/2 years late if anyone here has an opinions/experience re: this...



three and a half years later    my opinions have not changed,,,,i will post some findings with my off beat drying methods in a while...by the way...still love this forum  read here everyday,just don't post much
rod


----------



## isipwater

Battenkiller said:


> As you know, I use the heat from my stove to drive down the RH in my basement, but if you _really_ want to use valuable electricity to do the job:
> 
> 
> http://owic.oregonstate.edu/pubs/dhkilns.pdf


I am new to wood burning. How do you do this and what is RH?


----------



## Jags

isipwater said:


> I am new to wood burning. How do you do this and what is RH?



RH = Relative Humidity.


----------



## Backwoods Savage

Had to dig a bit deep to find this thread.... With some of  it one should also be wearing boots.


----------

