Also check seals with the dollar bill trick. Tall chimney may cause lots of draft- some here will suggest a pipe damper.
Now that would be talking anal to a new level!Danno77 said:I wonder if it would be beneficial to make a simulated firebox out of 2x2s or something cheap, and then packing in your next load and being able to experiment with the pieces before actually throwing them into the stove.
No, I hate to admit that there are any benefits to burning wet wood.FratFart said:y hate to admit the truth?
River19 said:Spent the second week with our new Jotul F3 and I was able to wake up each morning after 6-7 hours of sleep to find enough coals to rekindle the fire and I only had the firebox 50-60% packed with 3 logs (one 50% burnt and the other two within 30mins of going to bed). Loaded the logs, closed the damper and went to bed.
Got up at 6am to go hunting, moved the remnants around, tossed in a small ball of paper, a couple pieces of kindling and within 5mins I had a new log in and a fire going……….
What am I missing here?
No arguments here, merely pointing out that wet wood will burn longer, not saying it is the thing to do, just saying it will burn longer...CrappieKeith said:Danno said...
Well, I hate to admit it, but FratFart (or whatever his name is) is right, Wet wood will burn longer. Or, at least that’s been my experience in a non-draft controlled fireplace.
Greenwood should never be burned in stoves or furnaces or fireplaces.
If you doubt this call your manufacture to see if they are ok with it or call your contractor to see if they will back the install or call your insurance company to see if they will cover a house fire.
It is impossible to make all of the btu's 8000 per lb @ 20% moisture if it is wetter.
Anyone that burns green wood is just asking for problems.
Decades ago, this is the way everybody I knew did it. I know people that still do it this way. They cut a green tree or two in the Fall just for this purpose. At night when getting ready for bed, they'd call it "banking" the stove, and in the firebox would go a big chunk of green wood, surrounded by a few smaller (possibly drier) pieces also cut that Fall. Chimney fires were quite common, but that big green piece of wood would smolder and hiss all night long. When I was a child, the creosote ran down the wall inside the house from the thimble, and the outside of the brick chimney was covered with it.Danno77 said:Well, I hate to admit it, but FratFart (or whatever his name is) is right, Wet wood will burn longer. Or, at least that's been my experience in a non-draft controlled fireplace. If I wanted a fire to last all night long, then I would toss a heavy wet round on the hot fire that was already going and when I'd wake up in the morning there it'd be, just barely left and glowing away waiting on the dry stuff to start it up again. I didn't get any impressive BTUs that way, I'm sure, because the energy was all spent drying the moisture out of the wood, but if the ONLY goal is a long burn, then wetter wood will win, IMO. doesn't mean it's a good idea, but it'll work (unless your chimney gets so much creasote that it catches on fire, or your neighbors drag you into the street in the night because they are are hacking on your smoke)
where is that rule written?tradergordo said:The fire also has to have secondary combustion, no smoldering.
Skier76 said:I'd be interested to see what other Oslo owners have experienced.
Right now, I'm burning pine...punky older pine. I usually load it up for the night around 10:30 or 11. I'll get up again around 2 or 3, rake out the coals and toss more wood on. That usually leaves some good coals for the AM. It also seems to keep the house at a pretty comfy temp. Oh, I have a Castine which is smaller than the Oslo. I knew from the get go that the Castine would NOT be an overnight stove...no matter what.
FratFart said:y hate to admit the truth? a rose by any other name...he may be able to mix greenish wood just right & get no creosote & extend the coals= gotta watch the chimni anyway so to be safe regardless of assumptions.Danno77 said:Well, I hate to admit it, but FratFart (or whatever his name is) is right, Wet wood will burn longer. Or, at least that's been my experience in a non-draft controlled fireplace. If I wanted a fire to last all night long, then I would toss a heavy wet round on the hot fire that was already going and when I'd wake up in the morning there it'd be, just barely left and glowing away waiting on the dry stuff to start it up again. I didn't get any impressive BTUs that way, I'm sure, because the energy was all spent drying the moisture out of the wood, but if the ONLY goal is a long burn, then wetter wood will win, IMO. doesn't mean it's a good idea, but it'll work (unless your chimney gets so much creasote that it catches on fire, or your neighbors drag you into the street in the night because they are are hacking on your smoke)
fact is u can burn too dry a wood & get inefficiency via excess CO & or creosote. stove is designed to burn 15%-20% moisture wood & anything lower can result in lack of adequate combustion air.= CO or creo unburnt up the chimni
quads said:Decades ago, this is the way everybody I knew did it. I know people that still do it this way. They cut a green tree or two in the Fall just for this purpose. At night when getting ready for bed, they'd call it "banking" the stove, and in the firebox would go a big chunk of green wood, surrounded by a few smaller (possibly drier) pieces also cut that Fall.
Depends on the strength of draft and the design of the stove, so it's a function of the particular stove/chimney combination, and also a function of how cold it is outside and wind conditions as well. If the draft is not overly strong, a good setting might be way above the minimum on the stove's air inlet. If the draft is very powerful, and it's a newer stove that can't be choked down as much (for good reason), then a flue damper could be needed, but I think that's the exceptional case. In my case, with an Oslo, it seemed to be around 1/4 open, with no flue damper.FratFart said:how throttled back? flue damper?grommal said:FratFart said:y hate to admit the truth? a rose by any other name...he may be able to mix greenish wood just right & get no creosote & extend the coals= gotta watch the chimni anyway so to be safe regardless of assumptions.Danno77 said:Well, I hate to admit it, but FratFart (or whatever his name is) is right, Wet wood will burn longer. Or, at least that's been my experience in a non-draft controlled fireplace. If I wanted a fire to last all night long, then I would toss a heavy wet round on the hot fire that was already going and when I'd wake up in the morning there it'd be, just barely left and glowing away waiting on the dry stuff to start it up again. I didn't get any impressive BTUs that way, I'm sure, because the energy was all spent drying the moisture out of the wood, but if the ONLY goal is a long burn, then wetter wood will win, IMO. doesn't mean it's a good idea, but it'll work (unless your chimney gets so much creasote that it catches on fire, or your neighbors drag you into the street in the night because they are are hacking on your smoke)
fact is u can burn too dry a wood & get inefficiency via excess CO & or creosote. stove is designed to burn 15%-20% moisture wood & anything lower can result in lack of adequate combustion air.= CO or creo unburnt up the chimni
Yes, for a given draft setting, wet wood will burn longer, but that's not a benefit, as it will also deliver less BTU output. The same burn time can be achieved with dry wood as long as the stove can be throttled back sufficiently, and you'd get the bonus BTU's that you waste making steam with the wet wood.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.