# Norway Maple



## dannynelson77 (Apr 19, 2010)

I read so much about Sugar Maple on this site and little about Norway.  Where I live (Southeast PA) there is a TON of Norway Maple here!!  It seems every couple houses in my area has a Norway Maple on it.  I know its considered hard maple, but anyone know the BTUs of it?  As good as Sugar?  I scored some on CL and it sure is pretty heavy stuff so I would think the BTUs are good on it.  Just cant find any good rock solid info on Norway Maple in comparison to Sugar Maple.  Anyone know more about it?


----------



## gzecc (Apr 19, 2010)

I've tried to find info on it also. Its not as good as sugar. I would say its a medium btu fuel. Does take at least a year to season if split small. Probably better than black walnut, not as good as hickory, oak, locust, apple, ash.  Its good just not great.


----------



## billb3 (Apr 19, 2010)

I've read  about the same BTU (26 - 27K) for Norway Maple as Sugar.

From  what I've burned ( no sugar maple here)  fairly comparable to red maple. I think it cuts and splits easier.
Burns pretty quick and I've never had any coals from it.
I used  to cut Norways down in the woods when I come across them (seeds from street plantings blow a surprising distance away ). Now I leave them for firewood unless there are oaks under them. They grow fairly quick.


----------



## Danno77 (Apr 19, 2010)

they are close enough that you'd never know the difference.


----------



## dannynelson77 (Apr 19, 2010)

It burns like Red Maple......soft Maple?  But has same BTUs as Sugar?  My confusion over this tree continues......


----------



## thewoodlands (Apr 19, 2010)

dannynelson77 said:
			
		

> It burns like Red Maple......soft Maple?  But has same BTUs as Sugar?  My confusion over this tree continues......



Red Maple or Soft Maple around 18.7 & Sugar Maple 24.0 depending on which chart you look at.

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache...ml+firwood+btu+chart&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


Zap


----------



## dannynelson77 (Apr 19, 2010)

Yea I know what Red and Sugar are rated at.  Cant find what Norway is rated at.  I know its considered hard though and know the big difference between Red and Sugar on the BTU chart.  Thats why I am confused when the above poster (billb3) said he thought it burned like Red Maple.


----------



## thewoodlands (Apr 19, 2010)

dannynelson77 said:
			
		

> Yea I know what Red and Sugar are rated at.  Cant find what Norway is rated at.  I know its considered hard though and know the big difference between Red and Sugar on the BTU chart.  Thats why I am confused when the above poster (billb3) said he thought it burned like Red Maple.



I think it falls under the same category has soft maple and red maple.

zap


----------



## dannynelson77 (Apr 19, 2010)

No, it is considered "hard maple".  I know that.  Sugar and Norway are HARD.  Silver and Red are SOFT.


----------



## oldspark (Apr 19, 2010)

dannynelson77 said:
			
		

> No, it is considered "hard maple".  I know that.  Sugar and Norway are HARD.  Silver and Red are SOFT.


 Hard to find out info about this for fire wood but it is almost the same denseity as Sugar Maple, found this looking at a discussion about flooring.


----------



## dannynelson77 (Apr 19, 2010)

Thats good.  Maybe it is really close to Sugar than on the BTU scale.....


----------



## sksmass (Apr 19, 2010)

dannynelson77 said:
			
		

> No, it is considered "hard maple".  I know that.  Sugar and Norway are HARD.  Silver and Red are SOFT.



I don't think this is true.  Check this thread for discussion of the conventional definitions behind the "hard" and "soft" maple definitions.  Norway, in my book, is "soft maple."  I burn it though.  Burns fine.  Splits nicely on the (rare) clean sections.  Downside is that the open grown street trees you can scrounge are usually covered with branch knots and crotches making the splitting tougher.


----------



## dannynelson77 (Apr 19, 2010)

Why in your book is it soft?

Info that I have found states its a hard wood and used for furniture unlike the Red and Silver maple which is very weak.  Heavy density to it too unlike Silver and Red.


----------



## oldspark (Apr 19, 2010)

If you want to look at this link and scroll down to "hard maple"
http://www.lewislp.com/woodchar.asp


----------



## sksmass (Apr 20, 2010)

oldspark said:
			
		

> If you want to look at this link and scroll down to "hard maple"
> http://www.lewislp.com/woodchar.asp



Yup, and this link contradicts that one:
http://www.badgerwood.com/desc/hmdesc.htm

I guess the terminology may be a regional thing.


----------



## oldspark (Apr 20, 2010)

sksmass said:
			
		

> oldspark said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Expalin to me how that contradicts the other list, it just does not list Norway Maple, no contradiction there just the absence of it, Norway Maple is a introduced species so it is not on a lot of lists including firewood. I found another site about flooring that say it is like Sugar Maple.
http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/trees/maplen.htm


----------



## dannynelson77 (Apr 20, 2010)

I have some of both at home split.  Just not seasoned yet.  But man the Norway is MUCH heavier and harder than the Red maple.  Not even close.  Would really have no idea how that wood can be considered soft.  But than again NOTHING out there actually states its soft other than what people think in their book.  This thread just proves what little information is out there on Norway and the conflicting information on what people think the wood is.......or is not.


----------



## dannynelson77 (Apr 20, 2010)

FINALLY   BTU chart that includes Norway.........yup right up there with Sugar....

http://www.xomba.com/characteristics_of_various_firewood


----------



## sksmass (Apr 20, 2010)

I don't think this is worth an argument.   I suspect the terminology has a lot to do with what region you are from.  Just like midwesterners say "pop" and new englanders say "soda".  They are talking about the same thing.  

At the end of the day Norway maple is a member of the Acer genus, thus a maple by definition on which we all agree.  Whether we choose to call it "hard" or "soft" makes no difference to how it burns and is basically a relative judgement.  It is "hard" relative to silver and "soft" relative to sugar.

Regardless of what we call it, as far as I am concerned every Norway maple in america should be cut and burned as fast as possible.  The tree is an invasive weed that drowns out our native hardwoods.  If we value sugar maple for its BTUs and its delicious maple syrup we should select for sugar maple forests by culling all norways we see.  I am on a mission to eliminate it from my land.

For those interested in ID'ing Norways and selecting them out of your forest land, the distinguishing features are:
1) tear a leaf from the branch at the petiole, you'll see a milky sap ooze from the stem.  A sugar maple's sap will be much clearer, almost translucent
2) Norway leaves are broader than they are long.  Sugar maples tend to be longer than they are broad and are more pointed/jagged looking.

They burn fine.  So, heat your house and do the earth a favor at the same time -- cut and split a Norway today!


----------



## Jags (Apr 20, 2010)

Interesting link Danny.  I learned something from it:

"The gaseous component of wood accounts  for over half of the available energy while the solid materials comprise the rest."

It reinforces the logic of an EPA stove extracting more btus than the old smoke dragons simply because it burns the gasses better.


----------



## Flatbedford (Apr 20, 2010)

I have a Norway Maple at my house that grows like a weed. Every year it reaches out and tries to engulf my house. I go up on the roof, trim it back and even more suckers come the next year. the roots are probably under the foundation too. I'd love to drop the whole thing, but it about 8' from the house and 8 feet from the side of my road. It also has overhead wires through it. I have to save my money so I can get my tree guy over here and get rid of it.
I "scored" just over a cord of Norway Maple about a year ago. After a year c/s/s it still won't burn very well. Must have been full of water when it was cut. I agree that they all should be cut and burned.


----------



## oldspark (Apr 21, 2010)

sksmass said:
			
		

> I don't think this is worth an argument.   I suspect the terminology has a lot to do with what region you are from.  Just like midwesterners say "pop" and new englanders say "soda".  They are talking about the same thing.
> 
> At the end of the day Norway maple is a member of the Acer genus, thus a maple by definition on which we all agree.  Whether we choose to call it "hard" or "soft" makes no difference to how it burns and is basically a relative judgement.  It is "hard" relative to silver and "soft" relative to sugar.
> 
> ...


No argument here, I am just reporting what I found in several places, it is hard maple no matter where you live and yes it is an intrusive tree.


----------

