a question for you scientific types out there ....

[jpl1nh]

I dunno Mike, I really like your explanation about the more open channels of the wet wood speeding combustion once the wood is dry but then again there's the once the wood is dry part also and how long does that take?. You might be in a position to do a "myth buster" type experiment. Set up two stoves identically, same pipes for draft ect. Get completely straight rounds of same wood type, same length, exactly same diam mix of sizes from small to large of both green and dry, fill each stove with a full charge of wood on an equal hot bed of coals, one stove green wood and one stove dry, and time each to complete ash. To be scientific you might have to repeat lets say 10 times each and then take the average. I'm voting for the dry myself.

 

[Martin Strand III]

Incredibly, I'm still thinking about this.

I think important points are being overlooked:

1. No one in this rant has defined "wet" wood.

2. Water in wood adds nothing to its heat value; the amount of heat we get from burning wood is determined by the carbon content of the wood (period, not the moisture content).

3. Water in wood consumes energy to vaporize the water before the wood burns; the less water, the less energy is 'wasted'.

4. Add enough water to wood and it will not burn at all (see 1. above); water is used to put out fires, no?

5. In comparing the burning of equal amounts of 'dry' wood with 'wet' wood, if the completeness of combustion is the same, the amount of BTUs produced will be the same (see 2. above).

6. More important than if wet or dry wood burns faster or not (since the same BTUs result from similar combustion of similar amounts), the most important factor in getting "useful" heat from the wood burning appliance is how the heat is transferred from the appliance to the room.

Questions?

Aye,
Marty

 

[jpl1nh]

Incredibly, I'm still thinking about this.

I think important points are being overlooked:

1. No one in this rant has defined "wet" wood.

2. Water in wood adds nothing to its heat value; the amount of heat we get from burning wood is determined by the carbon content of the wood (period, not the moisture content).

3. Water in wood consumes energy to vaporize the water before the wood burns; the less water, the less energy is 'wasted'.

4. Add enough water to wood and it will not burn at all (see 1. above); water is used to put out fires, no?

5. In comparing the burning of equal amounts of 'dry' wood with 'wet' wood, if the completeness of combustion is the same, the amount of BTUs produced will be the same (see 2. above).

6. More important than if wet or dry wood burns faster or not (since the same BTUs result from similar combustion of similar amounts), the most important factor in getting "useful" heat from the wood burning appliance is how the heat is transferred from the appliance to the room.

Questions?

Aye,
Marty

agreed each would produce same BTU;s but in the wet, the BTU's would go towards the evaporation of water reducing useful heat output and perhaps lowering stove temp so wood would take longer to burn or at least not burn as effectively.

 

[Martin Strand III]

Incredibly, I'm still thinking about this.

I think important points are being overlooked:

1. No one in this rant has defined "wet" wood.

2. Water in wood adds nothing to its heat value; the amount of heat we get from burning wood is determined by the carbon content of the wood (period, not the moisture content).

3. Water in wood consumes energy to vaporize the water before the wood burns; the less water, the less energy is 'wasted'.

4. Add enough water to wood and it will not burn at all (see 1. above); water is used to put out fires, no?

5. In comparing the burning of equal amounts of 'dry' wood with 'wet' wood, if the completeness of combustion is the same, the amount of BTUs produced will be the same (see 2. above).

6. More important than if wet or dry wood burns faster or not (since the same BTUs result from similar combustion of similar amounts), the most important factor in getting "useful" heat from the wood burning appliance is how the heat is transferred from the appliance to the room.

Questions?

Aye,
Marty

agreed each would produce same BTU;s but in the wet, the BTU's would go towards the evaporation of water reducing useful heat output and perhaps lowering stove temp so wood would take longer to burn or at least not burn as effectively.

Agreed.

Aye,
Marty

 

[Jimbob]

Incredibly, I'm still thinking about this.

I think important points are being overlooked:

1. No one in this rant has defined "wet" wood.

2. Water in wood adds nothing to its heat value; the amount of heat we get from burning wood is determined by the carbon content of the wood (period, not the moisture content).

3. Water in wood consumes energy to vaporize the water before the wood burns; the less water, the less energy is 'wasted'.

4. Add enough water to wood and it will not burn at all (see 1. above); water is used to put out fires, no?

5. In comparing the burning of equal amounts of 'dry' wood with 'wet' wood, if the completeness of combustion is the same, the amount of BTUs produced will be the same (see 2. above).

6. More important than if wet or dry wood burns faster or not (since the same BTUs result from similar combustion of similar amounts), the most important factor in getting "useful" heat from the wood burning appliance is how the heat is transferred from the appliance to the room.

Questions?

Aye,
Marty

agreed each would produce same BTU;s but in the wet, the BTU's would go towards the evaporation of water reducing useful heat output and perhaps lowering stove temp so wood would take longer to burn or at least not burn as effectively.

Well said. Also "green" wood causes way more creosote in the chimney, and most of the chimney fires we have seen around here have been the result of burning un-seasoned wood.

 

[Martin Strand III]

The other day, I brought in a load of wood from the wrong side of my woodpile, which we now know is exposed to wind-driven rain. We started the fire at 9:00 AM, but it took a half-dozen firestarter cubes and some vigorous bellows action to get it going, and we couldn't turn the draft control down for several hours, or the fire would go out. By the time the load had dried to the point where it would sustain combustion at a lower draft setting, it was half gone and well into the charcoal stage, and our showroom still wasn't as warm as we normally keep it (we never did see any secondary burn). So, we crammed more wet wood in there, and started the process over. By the end of the day, we had burned about 1-1/2 loads of wood, instead of our typical one load. And the store never did get up to the usual temperature.

Respectfully, I don't call this "burning". I call this "polluting".

Aye,
Marty