# Deconstructing Denniswood



## Battenkiller (Oct 20, 2011)

Tony (Fire_Man) sent me two splits of firewood he got from Dennis at the Woodstock/Hearth.com get-together.  I got them the other day and immediately began to analyze them for moisture content, both with my little blue Harbor Freight meter and using the extremely accurate oven-dry method.

I got the following readings after re-splitting:

White ash - 15% MC outside, 28% MC inside.  I used the Delmhorst species correction chart to determine the correction for both readings.  I subtracted 3 points from the high reading (chart only goes to 24%, so I applied the maximum amount given in the table), and 1 point from the low reading.  I added both readings together and divided by two to get the average MC for the entire split - *19.5% MC*.

Black cherry - 13% MC outside, 15% MC inside.  To correct for species, I added 1.5 points to both readings (see table below), then added them together and divided by two (as above) to get an average MC for the split of *14.5% MC*.













I took each half-split and made several 1" thick cuts along the length on the bandsaw.  This was done to get wood samples along the entire length of the splits.  Then I chopped them into smaller chunks about 1"x1" in order for them to dry faster.  Finally, I placed the small chunks from each sample into a pre-weighed plastic container and weighed them to the nearest 0.1 gram on the triple-beam balance.  I subtracted the weight of the container from the total to get a starting weight for each sample:

White ash - 306.0 grams
Black cherry - 283.2 grams

I put the chunks on a dinner plate and microwaved them on high for 2 minutes, stopping every 30 seconds to loosely toss the pile.  After four consecutive 30 second cycles, I placed the chunks back into the pre-weighed container and weighed them, alternating the samples each time and recording both weights as they changed.  After I got three consecutive readings that were unchanged, I recorded the final weight and placed them into a pre-heated 220F oven overnight.  The following morning, I weighed each sample to see if the weights had changed from the microwave drying (they hadn't).


Final weights were as follows:

White ash - 251.8 grams (water lost = 54.2 grams)
Black cherry - 243.5 grams (water lost = 39.7 grams)


I used the following formula to get the dry-basis MC of the samples:


*Total water lost (grams)/final oven-dry weight (grams) x 100 = %MC dry-basis.*








I determined the actual moisture content of the splits to be as follows:

*White Ash - 22% MC
Black cherry - 16% MC*


In both cases, my meter gave a slightly lower reading than the oven-dry method showed.  The meter said the white ash was at 19.5% MC while the oven-dry method proved it to be 22% MC.  The black cherry read 14.5% MC on the meter, while the actual MC was 16%.









The moisture meter measures wood using dry-basis calculations, but the wood heating industry uses another method called the "wet-basis" calculation.  This is a more intuitive and useful way to visualize the water remaining in the wood as a percentage of the original weight as opposed to a percentage of the oven-dry weight.  _To convert the meter reading to wet-basis, just use the following formula:_


*Wet-basis reading = meter reading/1 + meter reading x 100
*


For the white ash, that is .22/1.22 = .18 x 100 = *18% MC.*
For the black cherry, that is .16/1.16 = *14% MC*


And that's all, folks.  My thanks to Tony for spending the time and money to send this wood my way.  We were both extremely curious to see exactly what the moisture content of the infamous ancient Sav-ash is, so now we know.  My guess is it got down this low a long time ago and basically stayed there all these years.  No sign of punk after 9 years in the stack, just good, seasoned firewood at the optimum moisture content.


----------



## Flatbedford (Oct 20, 2011)

Must have some time on your hands! Nice presentation.


----------



## snowleopard (Oct 20, 2011)

Ah, but did you try cleaning up spilled grape juice with it?


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 20, 2011)

snowleopard said:
			
		

> Ah, but did you try cleaning up spilled grape juice with it?



Sav-ash... the quicker picker upper.  :lol:


----------



## oldspark (Oct 20, 2011)

And now we know the rest of the story, cool I found your results interesting, I guess I am a wood nerd, a werd.


----------



## fossil (Oct 20, 2011)

You've got some sort of real problem, BK.  (And this observation from an engineer with lifelong OCD).   :lol:   Rick


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 20, 2011)

fossil said:
			
		

> You've got some sort of real problem, BK.  (And this observation from an engineer with lifelong OCD).   :lol:   Rick



Hey... Tony put me up to it.  Blame him, he's an engineer as well.  :lol:


----------



## golfandwoodnut (Oct 20, 2011)

Dennis will probably say, "What do you need all this stuff for?"  Just split the wood and leave it sit for 3 or more years and it will be ready to burn.  But then again he is the master.

Was the wood really that old? I thought he gave most of the really old stuff away and cut alot of Ash in the last couple of years.


----------



## Jags (Oct 20, 2011)

snowleopard said:
			
		

> Ah, but did you try cleaning up spilled grape juice with it?



You know better than that - "wood is not a sponge".

Nice work BK.  I'm with ya in saying that the wood probably sat the last 6-7 years at a stable "at rest" point.  Don't let Rick poke fun at ya.  I heard he folds his dirty laundry. %-P


----------



## pen (Oct 20, 2011)

and to think someone accused me of Omphaloskepsis a few weeks ago.  

So'd you burn that stuff yet?

pen


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Oct 20, 2011)

Just wait until next year!


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 20, 2011)

pen said:
			
		

> and to think someone accused me of Omphaloskepsis a few weeks ago.
> 
> So'd you burn that stuff yet?
> 
> pen



Well, truth told, I'm a bit afraid of it.  If the regular Sav-ash burns so well, what will the high-test oven-dry stuff do?  'Fraid it might explode in there.   `


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Oct 20, 2011)

Now for the engineers amongst us. Why did Tony have such a difficult time splitting that wood?


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 20, 2011)

Backwoods Savage said:
			
		

> Now for the engineers amongst us. Why did Tony have such a difficult time splitting that wood?



I have no clue.  Split like a dream with just an axe, both pieces.  What'd he use, one of those newfangled Fishkers?


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Oct 20, 2011)

Tony used a splitting maul driving a wedge into it.


----------



## maxed_out (Oct 20, 2011)

Nice work BK.  Ties right in with some of your previous work as well.  This and the combustion/efficiency charts you did tied it all together for me.  thanks.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 20, 2011)

maxed_out said:
			
		

> Nice work BK.  Ties right in with some of your previous work as well.  This and the combustion/efficiency charts you did tied it all together for me.  thanks.



No problem, glad to help out.  

I'm weird, I know, but this is fun stuff to do.  Especially when I've been stuck at a computer desk for six weeks looking for a new home before I get kicked out of here in six more.  :ahhh:  Not much to do but sit around and wait for the realtor to call and tell me when we can see yet another ugly house to not make an offer on.  After several weeks of that, these projects are like mini-vacations.


----------



## fossil (Oct 20, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> ...Don't let Rick poke fun at ya.  I heard he folds his dirty laundry. %-P



It's really not folding so much as just turning it inside out.   %-P


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 20, 2011)

Backwoods Savage said:
			
		

> Tony used a splitting maul driving a wedge into it.



Ah-ha!  Wrong weapon for small wood IMHO.


----------



## Blue Vomit (Oct 20, 2011)

BK,
Just curious... in reference to your MC reading table, can you explain why certain species read higher on the MM while the other species read lower in relationship to the acual MC? Does it have to do with the density of the species? I was under the impression that my MM would give me a slightly higher reading than the actual MC. Apparently this is not true for my cherry?


----------



## Llamaman (Oct 20, 2011)

glad you are playing with Dennis' wood and not mine


----------



## BrotherBart (Oct 20, 2011)

What a coincidence BK. Exactly how I test each of my splits.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 20, 2011)

Blue Vomit said:
			
		

> BK,
> Just curious... in reference to your MC reading table, can you explain why certain species read higher on the MM while the other species read lower in relationship to the acual MC? Does it have to do with the density of the species? I was under the impression that my MM would give me a slightly higher reading than the actual MC. Apparently this is not true for my cherry?



Density has a role, but it's mostly the amount of extractives in the wood that is the major player.  No way to predict the changes in resistivity in different woods, each species (and sub-species) would have to be checked against the oven-dry method for accuracy.  This is why I say that meters are fun and useful, but they are not something you just jab into the wood and get 100% reliable results with.  The oven-dry method, however, is foolproof.  As long as you weigh carefully and you don't set the wood on fire, you will get results that are near 100% accuracy.  You don't even have to have an idea what species it is since all you are doing is slowly driving off all the water and taking before and after weights.  But... it is just a wee bit more time consuming than using a meter.


----------



## MasterMech (Oct 20, 2011)

So let me get this straight, you guys are FedEx-ing, UPS-ing, USPS-ing splits around the northeast now? LMAO.  Has any other Hearth.com member had the honor of his splits being shipped around the country for analysis? 

Battenkiller might be on to something.  There's prob money in opening up his own "wood lab" lol.  Serious burners could send in samples for a full analysis and receive a detailed report back.  Much like I do with oil samples!


----------



## Dune (Oct 21, 2011)

MasterMech said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight, you guys are FedEx-ing, UPS-ing, USPS-ing splits around the northeast now? LMAO.  Has any other Hearth.com member had the honor of his splits being shipped around the country for analysis?
> 
> Battenkiller might be on to something.  There's prob money in opening up his own "wood lab" lol.  Serious burners could send in samples for a full analysis and receive a detailed report back.  Much like I do with oil samples!



Why, you never UPS firewood?


----------



## weatherguy (Oct 21, 2011)

How long would it take to dry out my cord of green red oak in the oven?  :cheese:


----------



## pen (Oct 21, 2011)

weatherguy said:
			
		

> How long would it take to dry out my cord of green red oak in the oven?  :cheese:



Good luck finding a used oven near BK now.

You'll know shortly weatherguy.

pen


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 21, 2011)

MasterMech said:
			
		

> Battenkiller might be on to something.  There's prob money in opening up his own "wood lab" lol.  Serious burners could send in samples for a full analysis and receive a detailed report back.  Much like I do with oil samples!



I've been setting this thing up for a couple years now. I got the idea when I saw that some wacky Hearthers were sending probe thermometers back and forth to have their accuracy tested.  ;-P


----------



## pen (Oct 21, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> I've been setting this thing up for a couple years now. I got the idea when I saw that some wacky Hearthers were sending probe thermometers back and forth to have their accuracy tested.  ;-P



 :red: 

pen


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 21, 2011)

pen said:
			
		

> Battenkiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, it's all good, man.  ;-)


----------



## MasterMech (Oct 21, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> MasterMech said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wonder how much it would cost to get a cord of Denniswood UPS'd in?  :ahhh:


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 21, 2011)

I want BK to start getting into BTU analysis next. THEN we can start talking about mailing some wood for analysis.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 21, 2011)

Danno77 said:
			
		

> I want BK to start getting into BTU analysis next. THEN we can start talking about mailing some wood for analysis.



That's an easy one.  Just oven dry and multiply the weight in pounds by 8660. 

Maybe I should offer a "2 for 1" deal.  :cheese:


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 21, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> Danno77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And then I have BTUs of the specific split. Is there a better # to help compare the wood to other species, etc? What I'm looking for here is whether my walnut is in line with all the charts I see online. Should we be finding density or something?


----------



## BrotherBart (Oct 21, 2011)

No wonder he hasn't found a house yet. Hint: Realtors don't find the one you are looking for. You do. Been there too many times.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 21, 2011)

Danno77 said:
			
		

> Battenkiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, you want to get the density of your wood, but you need to oven-dry it first.  Figure volume out after it's completely dry by either cutting a block of accurate measurement (not quite as easy as it seems) or by using the displacement method. And of course, weigh it before and after you dry it in the oven so you can also figure out the starting moisture content. 

Hey... I'm giving away all my business secrets.  :shut:


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 21, 2011)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> No wonder he hasn't found a house yet. Hint: Realtors don't find the one you are looking for. You do. Been there too many times.



We bin doin' _all_ the findin'.  Realtor just gets us access to the key lockbox.  

Reason we ain't found a good one is there ain't any. Mostly distressed homes at high asking prices.  Mysterious "multiple offers" on homes that have been sitting at the same high price for months.  "For Sale By Owner" properties that the owner thinks is a special palace just because he did the add-ons hisself.  Decent homes that fail the strict FHA inspection and appraisal guidelines, places that are bargains but come with mindbogglingly disproportionate high taxes...... We bin there now.  Worst frickin' nightmare we've ever faced, and we've faced some doozies.  :snake: 

But, say.... Whaddya think 'bout that there Denniswood?


----------



## SolarAndWood (Oct 21, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> Whaddya think 'bout that there Denniswood?



Seems we need a sample from every year of Denniswood to see what the drying curve looks like.  Then do it for 50 years so we can see the effects of days of sun, avg wind speed, etc.  Pretty sure we will conclude that if you get 3+ years ahead you will be all good.  Alternatively, some lesser amount combined with a Battenkiln in the basement achieves the same thing.

Good luck with the house search.  NY property taxes and so much property in limbo that people are underwater on does really inefficient things to the market.  How narrow is your geographic search?  Get away from an easy drive from the NY metro area and things get a lot cheaper fast.  Getting off the path between NYC and the ADKs or VT seems to help to.  Around Utica, for example, is a lot cheaper than anywhere off the Northway especially if you are looking for acreage.


----------



## Dune (Oct 21, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> BrotherBart said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See if you can set a search parameter that the property has been on the market for at least a year.

It is true that many people list their property for the price they want, not what the market will bear.

I have also noted a phenomonon where I find a property which has been on the market for years with no offers, the day after a good offer is received.


----------



## Got Wood (Oct 21, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> MasterMech said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, you guys are in trouble transporting firewood more than 50 miles..... LOL


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 21, 2011)

Got Wood said:
			
		

> Hey, you guys are in trouble transporting firewood more than 50 miles..... LOL



No, no... we're... uh......... destroying Savage's ash borers.  Yeah, _that's_ the ticket.  :cheese:


----------



## snowleopard (Oct 21, 2011)

Couldn't you just evaluate the burning qualities of wood based on Fed-Ex shipping costs?  Much simpler . . .


----------



## Flatbedford (Oct 21, 2011)

Definition of OMPHALOSKEPSIS

: contemplation of one's navel as an aid to meditation; 

I didn't know either. :red: 

I was gonna bring up the 50 mile thing. Not only was it more than 50 miles, but from out of state too! And from an area known to be infested! Better burn it quick.


----------



## GAMMA RAY (Oct 21, 2011)

Flatbedford said:
			
		

> Definition of OMPHALOSKEPSIS
> 
> : contemplation of one's navel as an aid to meditation;
> 
> I didn't know either. :red:




 :lol: 
That came from another thread......
It was "Manhattan" nite..... ;-P


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 21, 2011)

Flatbedford said:
			
		

> Not only was it more than 50 miles, but from out of state too! And from an area known to be infested! Better burn it quick.



Nah, still lots of potential data left in those pieces.  As my old college mentor used to say, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."  ;-) 

Besides, I'm having too much fun watching it "inflate" again.  That ash has already picked up almost half an ounce of water just sitting on the balance tray in the kitchen.  Can't get a reading on the MM yet (still lower than 6% MC), but I'll bet it will be back up to 10% within a week.


----------



## oldspark (Oct 21, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> Flatbedford said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Another study in the works?


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 21, 2011)

oldspark said:
			
		

> Another study in the works?



Gosh, you guys sure enjoy prodding me into doing these things then standing back and poking fun, eh?   :lol: 

Where is that Tony anyway?  :roll:  ;-)


----------



## GAMMA RAY (Oct 21, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> oldspark said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just wanna know if you wear the "apron" when conducting these studies.... ;-)  :lol:


----------



## Woody Stover (Oct 21, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> My guess is it got down this low a long time ago and basically stayed there all these years.  No sign of punk after 9 years in the stack, just good, seasoned firewood at the optimum moisture content.


I figured that any wood left for a long time, regardless of species, would dry to the EMC. What gives?


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 21, 2011)

Woody Stover said:
			
		

> Battenkiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bingo!

I've been holding my breath waiting for that question to be asked.  Thank you so much, Woody!   At least _somebody_ has their thinking cap on.    :roll:   :lol:  

Anybody got any ideas why Sav's nine year-old firewood is way up around 22% MC when it should really be down about 16% MC (where that cherry split is) in his locale?  This not only seems interesting, it seems downright impossible.  And yet, that's what the oven-dry method shows it to be... and the oven-dry method can _never_ give a result that is higher than the real MC, only false results that are lower than the real MC are possible.

Any hands in the air, class?  C'mon... anybody else here that showed a pic of his re-split wood showing an inner MM reading of 28% MC would be told to close the door of the stove and come back next year with real firewood, yet not a single comment until now.


----------



## Jags (Oct 21, 2011)

Maybe wood IS a sponge (but it still doesn't work worth a crap to pick up spilled grape juice).


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Oct 21, 2011)

I still have a few pieces of that older wood left. Perhaps I should save them for another experiment.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 21, 2011)

Backwoods Savage said:
			
		

> I still have a few pieces of that older wood left. Perhaps I should save them for another experiment.



Yes, I think you are right.  

I really think that somehow the ash split Tony gave me was not your wood.  He said he was pretty sure it came from the stuff you had wrapped in bailing twine, but there was ash in that bin at Woodstock and your bundles were in there with them.  Only thing I can think of.  I've been saying for a couple years now that firewood stored outside in your general area won't ever get below about 16% MC, but it WILL get there... and in a lot less time than nine years.

If you want me to re-test some of that old stuff, I'd be only too happy to oblige you.  You deserve a fair shake here after all you have contributed to this board.  If subsequent splits test out the same, I guess we'll just have to accept it, but I'll feel better knowing that Denniswood is every bit as low in MC as we think it should be.


----------



## ewdudley (Oct 21, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> I put the chunks on a dinner plate and microwaved them





			
				Battenkiller said:
			
		

> And yet, thatâ€™s what the oven-dry method shows it to be


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 21, 2011)

I admit it, I was tired of hearing about his nine year old splits, so I have been going out to his house every night and hosing down the firewood.


----------



## Woody Stover (Oct 21, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> I'll feel better knowing that Denniswood is every bit as low in MC as we think it should be.


It was reported that the Progress was throwing prodigious amounts of heat. It's possible that the Ash was heavily perspired upon... :lol:


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 21, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> Maybe wood IS a sponge (but it still doesn't work worth a crap to pick up spilled grape juice).



Well, of course it is!  And it _will_ pick up spilled grape juice... just at a crippled snail's pace.

What wood cannot do, no matter how long you leave it, is to pick up water from the air beyond the EMC.  As you can see from this chart, in order for Sav's wood to regain enough moisture to show a MM reading of 28% MC on the inside, it would have to be stored in an environment that never dropped below about 96% relative humidity (that's with the species correction of three percentage points).  If that moisture came in the form of rain, we should see the moisture gradient pointing in the other direction (i.e. wetter on the outside than the inside).  That isn't what we saw.  For Dennis' wood to reach 28% MC inside, the entire split would have to have gotten up to 28% MC (maybe 2-3 years at a constant 95% RH day and night) and then dried down to 15% on the outside.

But, no, that couldn't happen either, because as soon as a new moisture gradient was established, water on the very inside would begin to diffuse from the center and it would then be lower than the fiber saturation point of the wood (about 28%).  And... AND..... *AND*...... because of a phenomenon called "hysteresis", once wood has dried down to a certain EMC, it will always rehydrate to a lower in MC at any given RH than it would have reached on the way down (hope that makes sense).  The areas in gray on the chart represent the upper and lower hysteresis limits throughout the complete range of MCs.










BTW this chart was copied from Dr. Bruce Hoadley's book, "Understanding Wood".  Note the text I highlighted in light green.  The most important thing in a 300 page book according to the author himself.  I'm of the opinion that this chart is the most important thing to know about drying firewood as well.  Once you grasp its true meaning, everything else will fall into place.


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 21, 2011)

I'm confused, then. Not about the concept, but I just can't theorize a scenario that would explain the data you obtained from these splits. I'll pay for Denis to send some new stuff, because hat's all I can come up with. I thin that Dennis should find some really old wood, some mid range aged stuff, and some new stuff. We really need more points of data.

Dangit BK, now you've got me itching to experiment and my wife won't like how this will go. PS - I'm gonna rehydrate the wood in a pressure cooker, just because it sounds like fun. Not sure what i'll be proving with that, but it will be fun. Maybe it will show an increased rate at which splits RE dry after being rained on.

Edit: I apologize for the spelling mistakes. I've turned off autocorrect on the iPad, because it was frustrating me. Maybe I need to turn it back on.


----------



## fossil (Oct 21, 2011)

Danno77 said:
			
		

> ...I'm gonna rehydrate the wood in a pressure cooker, just because it sounds like fun. Not sure what i'll be proving with that, but it will be fun. Maybe it will show an increased rate at which splits RE dry after being rained on...



Well, Danno, try anything you want that sounds like fun to you...but I'd suggest being real careful to avoid irritating Mrs. Danno.  I can't quite stretch my imagination around somehow equating a pressure cooker to getting rained on, but hey...carry on!  Rick


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 21, 2011)

Well, i guess I could just shower with the splits. That's not weird, right?


----------



## Jags (Oct 21, 2011)

Danno77 said:
			
		

> Well, i guess I could just shower with the splits. That's not weird, right?



Just don't mistake it for your bar of soap.  Splinters... :grrr:


----------



## fossil (Oct 21, 2011)

Danno77 said:
			
		

> Well, i guess I could just shower with the splits. That's not weird, right?



What happens in your shower stays in your shower.   :lol:


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Oct 21, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> Backwoods Savage said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



BK, the only ash that was there is the stuff I brought. I just don't know for sure which wood you got. If memory serves me I took some from 2009--2010, 2008-2009, 2007-2008, and the two splits from December 2002. It was all white ash with the exception of the one cherry that was from the 2002 batch.


----------



## rdust (Oct 21, 2011)

The Dennis ash I tested with my cheapo meter when he hooked me up a while back was 16-18%.  It was from the older stacks IIRC.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 21, 2011)

Backwoods Savage said:
			
		

> BK, the only ash that was there is the stuff I brought. I just don't know for sure which wood you got. If memory serves me I took some from 2009--2010, 2008-2009, 2007-2008, and the two splits from December 2002. It was all white ash with the exception of the one cherry that was from the 2002 batch.



Then I'm gonna have to assume that I got a split from the 2010 batch.  It's the only thing that makes sense.  Maybe you should start branding the date on each split.  ;-) 

The stuff Tony sent me doesn't even look that old.  The cherry OTOH looked old as the hills.  It is pretty dense stuff, though, both of the splits.  I think I'll go downstairs and light the first fire of the season with kindling left from that wood.  Good way to kick off a new hearth year, with wood that's almost a decade old... air-dried by the master himself.   

Let's see... 1/4 part SuperCedar, 4 parts Savash, 4 parts, Dennischerry, and a heaping dollop of last year's black birch on top.  Sound like a good recipe for H-E-A-T?


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Oct 21, 2011)

Each bundle was marked as to the year it had been split. They were tied with baler twine; each year separate.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 21, 2011)

Backwoods Savage said:
			
		

> Each bundle was marked as to the year it had been split. They were tied with baler twine; each year separate.



I could use a man like you in the lab here. ;-)


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Oct 21, 2011)

Well, we could probably have some fun if nothing else.


----------



## snowleopard (Oct 21, 2011)

Danno77 said:
			
		

> I admit it, I was tired of hearing about his nine year old splits, so I have been going out to his house every night and hosing down the firewood.



Won't do you any good.  Petrified wood is not a sponge.


----------



## fossil (Oct 22, 2011)

Are we about done here?  A thread that runs to 4 pages and gradually deteriorates to sexual innuendo is, IMO, about done dancing.  I'll leave it for a little while for comments, but if there's no compelling reason to leave it open, I'm going to shut it down.  Rick


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 22, 2011)

Rick, I spent a lot of time on this, both in the actual work done and in the write up, uploading photos, scanning charts, etc.  I know that this stuff really isn't your cup of tea, but there are lots of folks here that find this interesting.  It's also extremely useful for new burners who are being advised to use moisture meters and are not really understanding the pitfalls of using them, or exactly what they are showing you.

I can't control the posts others make, but to shut a thread down that I began in all sincerity to help the membership improve their wood processing is a bit beyond me as to why that would be necessary.  A polite reminder to the offending posters that this is a family forum is all that is really necessary.  Yes, I did have a lot to add here, but I was waiting for more critical and serious comments to come in.  No point in my wasting any time thinking about this one any more if you're just going to arbitrarily shut it down.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 22, 2011)

And BTW... over _1300 views and over 70 replies in less than 48 hours_ might suffice to show you the extent of the interest in this topic among the readership.  Only a scant few replies contained any sort of sexual innuendo. Again, beyond this OP's control.


----------



## fossil (Oct 22, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> ...I know that this stuff really isn't your cup of tea...



Wrong, Bk...I'm as geeky a Mechanical Engineer as you'll find, and it's quite obvious that you've put a good deal of thought, time and effort into this.  flatbedford was kind enough to remove the text of his post.  Carry on, I'll let it run for now.  Rick


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 22, 2011)

Apologies for initial derailment, but my original thoughts still hold true. Wood is not a sponge has been thrown around quite a bit, but naysayers will be naysayers until someone like BK offers up hard data that wood was submerges, showered, pressure cooked, whatever, and then had it's MC checked again. Not that there haven't been labs that have been over this, but nothing like a fellow wood burned available to group discussion posting results from experiments that we can all replicate in our kitchens. And if I have to take a shower with a couple of splits of Black Walnut in the name of science, then so be it!

BTW, a lot of "initial post has been answered, so no more" going on around here lately. Disappointing, because of the comradery that is developed by joking, poking, and off topic banter that generally follows a successful post. It is what it is, and I'm just a guest here. Certainly not wanting to scare away new people with racey topics and comments, but a little isn't gonna hurt anybody, except people who have a financial interest in what goes on here.


----------



## Flatbedford (Oct 22, 2011)

Joking aside, So what your saying BK is that air dried wood can only get as dry as the relative humidity of it's environment and the limitations of the species allow. Once that level is reached, even if submerged in water, the MC can only rise a relatively small amount, but never back to what it was when the wood was green. Does that mean that it's OK for me to continue not covering my stacks, as long as my wood has some time in the sun to allow surface moisture to evaporate before I attempt to burn it?


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 22, 2011)

Flatbedford said:
			
		

> Joking aside, So what your saying BK is that air dried wood can only get as dry as the relative humidity of it's environment and the limitations of the species. Once that level is reached, even if submerged in water, the MC cab only rise a relatively small amount, but never back to what it was when the wood was green. Does that mean that it's OK for me to continue not covering my stacks, as long as my wood has some time in the sun to allow surface moisture to evaporate before I attempt to burn it?



Exactly what I wan to know. And are we talking about a wood having 30% initial, dry down to 15% and then being able to fluctuate up to 18% max, or up to 23% max?


----------



## WoodPyro (Oct 22, 2011)

Short term MC aside, I personally feel if you leave a bunch of stacks uncovered depending on where they are and where you live in relation to rainfall, some part will eventually get punky and or slightly rotten, especially around thick bark.  Also, especially if other trees' leaves and debris fall on the stacks and contribute to decay.  Ideally, I think wood should be split from rounds within 3 months and then after the first year be covered as in a woodshed or nice cover.  Obviously never leave bottom layer on ground unless you are sacrificing it.


----------



## fire_man (Oct 22, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> MasterMech said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When I told the Postmaster I was sending firewood cross country, he thought I was nuts. Then I told him it was "Denniswood" being shipped for analysis  and he understood and suggested I insure the package!  :lol:

Batten: Thanks for the great posts. It was well worth it to finally get some analysis performed on that cryptonic firewood!


----------



## fire_man (Oct 22, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> oldspark said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry I missed all these great posts for so long. You know how being an Engineer is these days, takes a lot out of you at work, that's why I love the firewood hobby!


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 22, 2011)

fire_man said:
			
		

> Battenkiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Glad the thread is still open for you, man.  It was your initiative (and your $10) that got the wood here in the first place.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 22, 2011)

Flatbedford said:
			
		

> So what your saying BK is that air dried wood can only get as dry as the relative humidity of it's environment



Yes.  



> and the limitations of the species allow.



No, species is irrelevant to anything but the actual resistance meter readings.  Within a given set of conditions, all species will eventually come to the same basic EMC over time.  Some species may take a lot longer to get there is all.



> Once that level is reached, even if submerged in water, the MC can only rise a relatively small amount



Oh, no, I never said that.  Wood can go from 0% MC straight from the oven right up to about 28% MC, just sitting there in air that is 100% RH.  The Savash that Tony sent me is still sitting on the tray on my balance beam.  It went from an oven-dry 251.3 grams at 0% MC up to 266.6 grams at 6% MC, just sitting in the kitchen air.  I suspect it will get up to about 10% MC in several more days... the same MC as just about all my interior woodwork is right now because it is all sitting in air that's at same RH.



> but never back to what it was when the wood was green.



Oh, it might get even wetter than green if you submerge it.  Fresh cut white ash is almost devoid of free water, so it has a MC down in the 30% range.  But soak some seasoned ash underwater for several months and it will get so waterlogged that you'd think it was oak.



> Does that mean that it's OK for me to continue not covering my stacks, as long as my wood has some time in the sun to allow surface moisture to evaporate before I attempt to burn it?



You have my permission, but your wood will be happier if you keep a hat on it after it is seasoned.  I found a 3-4% difference this season between wood was under cover all season long and wood that got rained on all season long.  3-4% doesn't mean anything to me, but among those cranks who are out there every day sticking holes in their wood while waiting for their wood stacks to pass lower than that magical 20% threshold, it will certainly make for some unhappy campers.  Especially because they passed that mark way back when the meter said 25%, but they refuse to accept the rules regarding what a resistance meter is actually telling them. :coolgrin:


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 23, 2011)

OK, I've been waiting for someone to comment on the meter reading in the upper right hand corner.  28% MC after seasoning for at least two full years (who knows... maybe longer).  

I've seen poster after poster talk about problems with his or her stove, saying his wood was at 22% MC after being re-split and measured on an inside face.  Almost universally, they are told that the problem is likely the wood, that EPA stoves need really dry wood, that the meter must be inaccurate, that you absolutely _have_ to get below 20% MC as measured on the inside of the split in order to get decent burns with an EPA stove.  Mix in some kiln-dried wood, or pallet wood, or just give up and try again next year when the wood is ready.

Or alternatively just cut, split, and stack it a a sunny and windy location for two years and it will be good to go.  Obviously, the above photo demonstrates that it may still show above 20% MC when a reading from the inside is taken with an accurate meter.  I think this study has shown that my meter is accurate to at least a couple percentage points (probably even more accurate if I had taken the time to take enough well-placed readings to get the correct moisture gradient inside the split).

And yet, this same wood from the same source was placed in an EPA stove at the Woodstock plant and just wowed everybody with it's incendiary results.  And as the owner and processor of this wood has told us time and again, he heats his entire home with only about 3 cord of the stuff.  Not just room-temp warm, either, we're talkin' warm enough to get the lady folk to start stripping.

How can this be?


----------



## oldspark (Oct 23, 2011)

There is still some people on this forum that think wood has to be in the low teens to burn well, not buying it at all. I checked the moisture on some 2x4 I split for kindling this morning and it was 14 to 15 %, thats pine that who knows how old it is so that as low as I will ever see here I think.


----------



## Flatbedford (Oct 24, 2011)

So do we conclude that the need for 20% MC and years of seasoning are a myth? Or, is there more to seasoning wood than simply lowering the MC? Does the seasoning do something else top change the wood? Has the cellular structure been altered? Density changed? I know that well seasoned wood just feels different than green wood. Scientifically speaking what besides MC changes as wood seasons? Remember that most species also get harder to split and cut after being seasoned too.


----------



## firefighterjake (Oct 24, 2011)

Flatbedford said:
			
		

> Joking aside, So what your saying BK is that air dried wood can only get as dry as the relative humidity of it's environment and the limitations of the species allow. Once that level is reached, even if submerged in water, the MC can only rise a relatively small amount, but never back to what it was when the wood was green. Does that mean that it's OK for me to continue not covering my stacks, as long as my wood has some time in the sun to allow surface moisture to evaporate before I attempt to burn it?



At last . . . I was waiting for someone to offer the Cliff Notes version of this whole test . . . thanks Flatbed.


----------



## Jags (Oct 24, 2011)

There will be a test on Wednesday.


----------



## Flatbedford (Oct 24, 2011)

firefighterjake said:
			
		

> Flatbedford said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But, like with Cliff's Notes, you probably won't pass the test with my post. Check #80. I didn't have quite right.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 25, 2011)

Flatbedford said:
			
		

> So do we conclude that the need for 20% MC and years of seasoning are a myth? Or, is there more to seasoning wood than simply lowering the MC? Does the seasoning do something else top change the wood? Has the cellular structure been altered? Density changed? I know that well seasoned wood just feels different than green wood. Scientifically speaking what besides MC changes as wood seasons? Remember that most species also get harder to split and cut after being seasoned too.



*Conclusions*:

Like most of the threads I start, this one is a stealth thread.  By that I mean that it's not at all about seasoning wood, or how well a split of "X" MC will burn in an EPA stove.  It's entirely about using a moisture meter correctly for your needs as a woodburner.

When we were standing outside the Woodstock building and I tested the freshly-split white ash at 28% MC, it was all I could do to hide a smirk.  "Surely, this is telling only a portion of the real tale", I thought. "If only I had this split in hand back home, I could do an oven-dry test for MC and find what it really is."  Tony graciously sent it my way, so I was only too happy to do the test.

Nearly every poster I have seen post results of their meter reading seems to have the wrong idea about what this reading means.  Those I have spoken to seem to want to ignore the fact that their meter is calibrated to give a reading using a dry-basis calculation.  At the Woodstock gathering I was explaining the huge difference between the two methods and a member implied that I must be using some sort of voodoo math, maybe like David Stockman used to invent Reaganomics.  Sorry, but it's the same math we used in grade school, just applied in a manner most people think is wrong.  Too bad the people designing and using these meters in an industrial setting think otherwise, because for their purposes, they work perfectly fine just as they are.

For some reason, burners here don't want to believe that the meter is giving them a different result than they are looking for.  They believe that the meter is giving them the percentage of water by weight that is present in the original wood, but in fact, it is giving them the percentage of water by weight compared to the weight of dry wood fiber in the sample.  The difference can be huge.  In short, if you don't understand the relationship between wet-basis and dry-basis calculations, you might as well throw the thing away.

The only thing that matters to a wood burner is the wet-basis calculation.  It is consistent throughout it's range and is linear in relation to water content variations in the samples.  Simply put, what you want to know is how much water is in a split weighing "X" pounds.  The meter will not give you this information directly... you have to use a simple arithmetic formula to get what you want.  I wish it wasn't so, but it is very true.


The formula was stated in bold text in the original post.  I'll try to say it differently.


Take the reading on your meter and add 100 to it.  Then divide the meter reading by the new (higher) number.  For example, let's look at a split of red oak (Red oak needs no species correction) that reads 25% on the meter:


25+100=125  25/125=20% MC wet-basis, or 20% water by weight.  5% lower.  Big difference, eh?


Let's try another one, a split of douglas fir (also needs no species correction) that reads 33% on the meter:

33+100=133   33/133=25% MC wet-basis, or 25% water by weight.  8% lower.  Bigger difference.


How about a 50% reading (I'll ignore the fact that meter aren't that accurate at that MC)

50+100=150.  50/150=33% MC.  17 points difference!  That's enormous, and it gets progressively more disparate as the MC climbs.  


If the meters actually worked beyond that point and used the same calculation method, a piece of wood that is 50% water by weight would read 100% MC on the meter, and one that is 2/3 water by weight would read 200% MC on the meter!  Mind-numbing... but true.  If you don't convert this you will have no idea how much water your wood really contains, simple as that.


How would you feel if you were driving a car that displayed your average speed on the speedometer instead of the speed you're actually traveling at?  Or one that gets progressively further from the real speed the faster you go.  In meter speak, that would be like seeing you are moving along at 20 mph when you are only doing 16, or seeing 25 when you are doing 20, 33 when you are doing 25, 50 mph when you are crawling along at 33 mph, or 100 mph when you are really cruising at 50. 


Burners using meters also want to blithely disregard the importance of species correction needed in using any meter... and the more significant problem of actually having enough experience to be able to identify the species in question.  This makes meter use very problematic for new burners who aren't sure if they have either hickory or tulip poplar... a difference of 5 1/2 points of correction between the two.


When I did the oven-dry MC assessment on Dennis' wood, I quoted it in dry-basis terms (like a moisture meter would read), and then converted it over to wet-basis terms (like a stove designer would speak of).  In simplest terms, I drove out every last bit of water - 54.2 grams - from 306.6 grams of well-seasoned ash.  That is to say, the wood was 17.7% water by weight, even though the meter said it was 28% inside.    And 17.7% MC is almost exactly between the the lower and upper range of MC used when your stove was originally tested for those emissions and heat output numbers it is supposed to have.  The EPA test calls for using wood that is between 16% and 20% MC wet-basis.  Is it any shock that it burned so well in the Woodstock stove?  Why wouldn't it?  At just under 18% MC, it's simply perfect.

Bottom line?  Wood needs to be seasoned, it's just a question of how dry and how long it takes to get there.  A general guideline is that it needs a minimum of a year stacked outside, two is better and three might be better yet in some geographical areas.  But if you grab a split of hickory from a two year-old stack and crack it open only to find out it's still reading 28% MC on your meter, don't be alarmed.  It's really telling you that your wood is at 20% MC in the very middle, and that the average MC for the entire split is even lower.

BTW Dennis.... have you fallen asleep yet?


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Oct 25, 2011)

Not yet BK. Still awake here.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 25, 2011)

Backwoods Savage said:
			
		

> Not yet BK. Still awake here.



Well, then, it's good thing I stopped when I did.  I saw I had one character left I could have put in the post without exceeding the forum limit.  That one character just might have put you over the edge. :lol:


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Oct 25, 2011)

Well BK, I've had a few characters put me over the edge a few times but those days are past.


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 25, 2011)

Cliff note me. Sounds like we need to make sure we are reporting our MCs in a way that specifies wet or dry method. MCD or MCW. And the meters we use give us the MCD, correct?


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 25, 2011)

Sorry, premature send...

...annnnddd, when we aim for <20%, for example, that refers to 20% MCW, so if we are using a meter, it would be in our best interest to convert the MCD to the MCW using the formula provided.


----------



## Flatbedford (Oct 25, 2011)

Or just forget the meter and make sure your wood is seasoned 2 or 3 years.


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 25, 2011)

BK, I assume you have seen this. It has a great list of specific gravities for a LOT of different species. It also has some formulas for determining correction for species, discusses range within species, etc.

http://tinyurl.com/3e4y9sk


----------



## Todd (Oct 25, 2011)

Very interesting BK, thanks for the analysis. I'm still sticking by the reliable liquid soap bubble test to find out when my wood is ready. Maybe you could tell us at what mc you can blow bubbles through a split?


----------



## pen (Oct 25, 2011)

Todd said:
			
		

> Very interesting BK, thanks for the analysis. I'm still sticking by the reliable liquid soap bubble test to find out when my wood is ready. Maybe you could tell us at what mc you can blow bubbles through a split?



Pics or it didn't happen!

pen


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 25, 2011)

Danno77 said:
			
		

> Sounds like we need to make sure we are reporting our MCs in a way that specifies wet or dry method. MCD or MCW. And the meters we use give us the MCD, correct?...annnnddd, when we aim for <20%, for example, that refers to 20% MCW, so if we are using a meter, it would be in our best interest to convert the MCD to the MCW using the formula provided.
> 
> BK, I assume you have seen this. It has a great list of specific gravities for a LOT of different species. It also has some formulas for determining correction for species, discusses range within species, etc.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/3e4y9sk



No need to do the conversion, really.  Just accept that 25% on the meter is the "new 20%" and aim for that.  If folks would just trust me on this one, there would be a lot less bandwidth used and Craig would be richer and could buy a bigger sailboat.  Or trust EPA Method 28, which specifically states that test loads must be between 19% MC and 25% MC dry-basis.... that is, as the resistance meter reads after species correction.  I really don't give a rat's rump about the claims some stove makers supposedly make regarding the MC of firewood in their stoves.  If it burns fine at 25% on a meter during the EPA test, it burns fine in the stove period.  

You can all sort out for yourselves whether or not an extra 2-3 years to possibly squeeze out a few extra BTUs is worth it.  I personally think it's a waste of time and space, but whatever blows yer skirt.  It's a hobby for many... have fun stacking it.  Not likely too many folks in the states can ever get it too dry for peak efficiency anyway, the EMC in their region will work against it.

Yes, you still have to correct for species.  Shagbark hickory reading at 28% on the meter is in reality at least three points lower.  That means it is 20% MCW... yup, ready to burn.  That Wagner manual is nice info, but it doesn't translate to electric resistance meters.  The Wagners use RF waves to measure density only.  Density is just a part of the equation with the resistance meters.  Plus, the RF-type meters come with their own set of problems.  

Nice thing about the RF-types is that you could always oven-dry the wood without even knowing the species and then determine the density, but heck, if you did that you'd be almost all the way there for using the oven-dry method, which is foolproof if you can just weigh accurately and know how to use a calculator.  I'd stick with the cheap little resistance meters, average the inner and outer readings to get an estimated average MC throughout the split, use the species correction table I provided for each reading, and burn it when it gets to 25% MC or less.

Cliff Notes:

1. You need to know the species of wood you are checking for.
2. The wood is ready when it reads 25% on a resistance meter _after_ corrections.
3. Firewood usually has a moisture gradient. Add both corrected readings and divide by two.


----------



## Todd (Oct 25, 2011)

pen said:
			
		

> Todd said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I thought I'd get banned for life if I posted pics!  :lol:


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 25, 2011)

Thanks for that, BK. I was just coming back to the thread to post my error, as I read the Wagner stuff, I realized it wasn't for pin-type resistance meters, but it was still interesting, lol.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 25, 2011)

pen said:
			
		

> Todd said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Try it, Pen.  It gets you high as a kite, and it's cheaper than a fridge full of beer.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 25, 2011)

Todd said:
			
		

> I thought I'd get banned for life if I posted pics!  :lol:



As long as it isn't Denniswood you'd probably be fine.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 25, 2011)

Danno77 said:
			
		

> Thanks for that, BK. I was just coming back to the thread to post my error, as I read the Wagner stuff, I realized it wasn't for pin-type resistance meters, but it was still interesting, lol.



Yes, very interesting.  That density stuff relates directly to BTU content.  Lots of species there as well, more than I've seen in any one place before.  Lotta oven-drying went into getting that info.


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 25, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> Danno77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. RE BTU content, that's exactly what I was thinking. I know I've said some things about my Black Walnut seeming to be better than what I tend to read in BTU charts, its density is something that I may look into. I just want some hard data, s that I know I'm not just imagining it.

BW is my favorite firewood. Seems to season quick, splits like a dream, and smells good, if I could determine that the BTUs are there, then that would be the icing on the cake.


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 25, 2011)

Danno77 said:
			
		

> Battenkiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you are willing to carefully do the oven drying, I can help walk you through through a few different ways to determine the density.  You would need several blocks from various parts of a few different trees to get a good estimate.  And a good kitchen scale.  A beam balance would be even better, but why would you have one of those?  :roll:   Might be fun, and you could get the real MC while you are at it.


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 25, 2011)

I have a kitchen scale, a bathroom scale, and I also have this digital scale that goes up to 300grams
http://www.pangeareptile.com/store/compact-digital-scale.html


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 25, 2011)

Danno77 said:
			
		

> I have a kitchen scale, a bathroom scale, and I also have this digital scale that goes up to 300grams
> http://www.pangeareptile.com/store/compact-digital-scale.html



That digital scale should be good enough.  Do you have a band saw or table saw, or easy access to them?  A dial caliper is also a very nice thing to have for this. With these items and some careful work you can get a direct measurement of the volume of a cube of oven-dried wood.

Alternatively, you can rig up a small displacement tank and get the volume that way.  By pushing the block under water you will displace the volume of the block.  You need to collect and weight the displacement water in grams. That will be your volume in milliliters.  From that and the oven-dry weight you can figure your density.


----------



## Jags (Oct 25, 2011)

Did you hear that?  That was the fuse in my head getting lit.  ITS GONNA BLOW...


----------



## Pagey (Oct 26, 2011)

Absolutely fascinating and enlightening thread.


----------



## bpm44 (Oct 27, 2011)

Totally fascinating thread. I will sheepishly admit at times I felt like I was back in school and the answers coming out of the calculus teachers mouth sounded like blah blah blah. I'm glad there's no test, but I follow what you're explaining. Nice details. Nicely presented.


----------



## firefighterjake (Oct 27, 2011)

jeeper said:
			
		

> Totally fascinating thread. I will sheepishly admit at times I felt like I was back in school and the answers coming out of the calculus teachers mouth sounded like blah blah blah. I'm glad there's no test, but I follow what you're explaining. Nice details. Nicely presented.



I'm holding out for the movie version . . . they always dumb things down in the movie so people like me can understand the message.  

--

Coming to a Theater near you . . .

Deconstructing Denniswood . . . one man's wood's journey from Milan to Minsk and then to Michigan to New York . . . 

Featuring Backwoods Savage as himself . . . a man with a mission . . . to cut a whole lot of ash and split wood the wrong way.

Batten Killer . . . a man looking for a home to call his own . . . a man who lives on the edge and isn't afraid to burn some pressure treated wood . . . a man who is dedicated to science.


----------



## MasterMech (Oct 27, 2011)

firefighterjake said:
			
		

> jeeper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Might worth a $10 barrel 'o popcorn!  %-P


----------



## Pagey (Oct 27, 2011)

firefighterjake said:
			
		

> jeeper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That, sir, is epic.  Especially when you read it to yourself using the "Movie Guy Voice" (TM).


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 27, 2011)

Ha, ha!  I love it!

Hold a minute... that's Spielberg on my cell right now.......

OK..... Looks like we got Robert Duvall for the part of Sav, and Matt Damon as the much, much, much younger savant named Battenkiller.

We're calling it , "Good Wood Hunting".


----------



## Jags (Oct 27, 2011)

Can this be filmed as a badly voiced over, Asian Martial Arts movie?  It would really give it some "pizazz".


----------



## firefighterjake (Oct 27, 2011)

I'm just wondering who the stunt doubles will be? Oops . . . derailed. . . .


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 27, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> Can this be filmed as a badly voiced over, Asian Martial Arts movie?  It would really give it some "pizazz".



I think I can convince Spielberg to go along with that.

I'll say, "Steve"..... I call him Steve.... "You shouldn't fear a martial arts defence system.  As a matter of fact, why don't you cooperate with us on a martial arts defense system?"


----------



## fossil (Oct 27, 2011)

OK, somebody give me the high sign when it's alright for me to either move this thread or shut it down.  Last time I tried I got in big trouble because I wasn't prescient enough to realize that BK wasn't finished yet with the serious stuff, even though the kids in the class had started getting fidgety and really silly waiting for him to continue the lecture.  Actually, BK, I would highly encourage you to write this up as a Hearth.com Wiki article.  Too much good information here to just let fade away into obscurity in a zombie thread.  Rick


----------



## Battenkiller (Oct 27, 2011)

fossil said:
			
		

> OK, somebody give me the high sign when it's alright for me to either move this thread or shut it down.  Last time I tried I got in big trouble because I wasn't prescient enough to realize that BK wasn't finished yet with the serious stuff, even though the kids in the class had started getting fidgety and really silly waiting for him to continue the lecture.  Actually, BK, I would highly encourage you to write this up as a Hearth.com Wiki article.  Too much good information here to just let fade away into obscurity in a zombie thread.  Rick



Pull it, Rick.  I'll work on an article when I have time.


----------



## fossil (Oct 27, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> fossil said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's excellent work and a unique contribution, BK...Thanks!  For now I'll just close it and leave it where it is.  I look forward to the Wiki article.  Rick


----------

