I posted earlier about how to speed up the seasoning process (basically make a greenhouse over the wood to raise the temperature), but I'm wondering: since wood dries out of the ends with the moisture leaving via the existing capillaries, I would think that, if one only had limited time, getting the wood blocked would allow much of the seasoning to happen, even without the wood being split. I'm sure splitting is ideal, but blocking is probably pretty close. Am I right?
Does 16" blocked wood season almost as fast as when split.
- Thread starter botemout
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
I have no specific experience with this, but I'd have to say no based on other experiences with drying wood. I think it all has to do with surface area exposed to air. I do mess around with moisture readings in split wood. The surface readings of 3 month old split wood are always encouraging, but when I re-split the pieces, the readings are dramatically higher. The whole "dry it for a year" is no joke.
I'd have to say that splitting will dramatically reduce drying times. Sorry...
I'd have to say that splitting will dramatically reduce drying times. Sorry...
It seems to depend on the species and grain. I split a few cord of straight grain ash and maple this spring that had been blocked for a year. It was very dry especially compared to logs from the batch of trees that were dropped at the same time. The logs, when blocked and split, were wet and heavy compared to the rounds.
That said, I would split everything right away instead of leaving it in rounds if I had the time. Getting it bucked is necessary and keeps the logs from rotting. Splitting is a little more forgiving.
That said, I would split everything right away instead of leaving it in rounds if I had the time. Getting it bucked is necessary and keeps the logs from rotting. Splitting is a little more forgiving.
I'm with everyone else on debunking this myth. It does dry some via the ends but not as well as when split. I'd say maybe 4 inches in on the ends is all, so you'd have to buck them to 8 inches. Of course some species will vary.botemout said:
Remember as well that the end grain soaks up chain oil which may impede drying so you might want to buck them up with a swede saw.
All that said, I take my wood delivery in the cold weather and will buck and stack the rounds right away but leave the splitting for after the snow melts. The way I see it, some drying is better than none but I still get a lot squirted on me when I split.
There were some field studies done on wood bucked with a log processing guillotine versus a chain and they found that the ragged torn end grain helped to speed the drying so you might want to get yourself a chomper.
http://www.chomper.net/
http://www.chomper.net/Seasoning Study.html
http://www.chomper.net/
http://www.chomper.net/Seasoning Study.html
Temperature and pressure are the too most important components in drying wood. Everything goes from hi to low pressure. If you could reduce the pressure and increase the temp in the woods environment, it will dry faster. You need to force the water out of the capillaries deep inside the wood.
This is done when burning wet wood. The water heats up and bubbles out.
This is done when burning wet wood. The water heats up and bubbles out.
although it may dry a little faster through the ends than thru the bark, a more important factor to me is the ratio of surface area to volume.
All surface area gives up moisture, bare is better than bark, bare end is best.
The more it is split, the faster it dries.
All surface area gives up moisture, bare is better than bark, bare end is best.
The more it is split, the faster it dries.
I might be wrong I though a "block" was what you had when you took a log and cut off a 16" piece. Maybe the more common term is "bucking?" I'm pretty new to all this so I might have it wrong.Bigg_Redd said:
Split it. If you have limited time, split it a little at a time. You're going to need it split eventually anyway and it will dry better and faster.
I've been confused a bit by this recently as well. There's that US Forest Service bulletin floating around here that talks about seasoning firewood in the round because splitting doesn't speed up seasoning that much!
Common sense would say the more surface area exposed and the smaller the split, the faster the seasoning. I'm splitting my oak down small to play it safe...
Common sense would say the more surface area exposed and the smaller the split, the faster the seasoning. I'm splitting my oak down small to play it safe...
pulldownclaw said:
Now, now, now . . . you ya gonna trust . . . some anonymous bulletin from the government folks . . . or your friends here at hearth.com who are actually burning wood in the woodstove?
. . . and this coming from a government employee . . . albeit city government.
botemout said:
Perhaps I'm reading this different than others. The OP asked, "If on only had limited time, getting the wood blocked would allow much of the seasoning to happen..."
To answer that question I'd have to say yes. Assuming limited time means not time enough to get the wood split, then at least cutting the log to length will help. Perhaps even cutting to half the length would be even better. That is, rather than cut 16" cut the logs to 8." Again, this allows more exposed areas for moisture to escape.
Now to answer the last question, being, "I'm sure splitting is ideal, but blocking is probably pretty close. Am I right?" No. Wood will season, I'm guessing, about twice as fast after being split; especially the big logs.
I guess it all depends on the image we have in our heads. When he said much, I said no because I would've said some.
But I guess I tend think of a round as over 24" diameter cut to stove length but I suppose actually, a round is anything cut to length but not split.
So, if he's talking around 4-6" stuff, I would say that much of the seasoning could happen in the round.
But I guess I tend think of a round as over 24" diameter cut to stove length but I suppose actually, a round is anything cut to length but not split.
So, if he's talking around 4-6" stuff, I would say that much of the seasoning could happen in the round.
To test the theory you can do a little experiment. Take a wood like red oak that takes a long time to season. Take two identical rounds from a tree. Split one of them and make one split from the center that is only 1" square. Leave the second round alone and store next to each other in the wood shed. Same enviroments, no other variables change but one is split. In three months split the 2nd round. It will be wet inside while your 1" split will be 100% dry to whatever your ambient humidity is. Most enviroments it will be 15-20% moisture content.
CTburning said:
So if one were in the Aridzona desert, the 1" piece would have - 8 percent moisture content? That desert is so frackin' hot it sucks the moisture right out of every living thing, so it sure feels like it has negative humidity. For that matter, so does So. Calif., but only when the Santa Anas are goin' strong.
Peace,
- Sequoia
TreePapa said:
When we lived in Southern Oregon, one of our neighbors would actually lightly spray water on his firewood stacks several times over the summer--especially when we got our normal 3-4 weeks of dry, very hot (100 degree+) weather. He claimed that the water evaporating from the surface of the splits actually helped the wood dry/cure faster............Any thoughts on this?
NP
- Status
