Rock maple versus Red Oak

[gyrfalcon]

yayayayaya! I know what the BTU charts say!
Red/silver maple is just way more dense and coals better than cherry IMHO. I'll definetLEE put it in my shed B4 cherry!

Well, red maple in my experience is about like burning styrofoam cups, so if silver's in the same class, I'll take just about anything over that.

WHat's "notinmass"? Does that mean "not in massachusetts"? If so, I'm there too.

 

[Battenkiller]

Thank you, Battenkiller (love your handle, btw).

Not too many folks get it. I get on boatbuilding forums and they think I like to destroy lofting battens. The Canadian canoeists all think I'm a deranged psychotic murderer. It's my home trout stream. Do you fish it?

I can do fine with this stove even down to below-zero temps if I can keep it running 450-500. I haven't been able to do that with Rock Maple, but it's no problem with the beech and the black birch. Like you, I've found red maple (haven't encountered silver) nearly useless-- doesn't seem to like to burn much even when it's bone dry and produces very minimal heat.

Looks like a real nice stove, but couldn't you find a smaller one? lol

A firebox that size is hard to heat up to the higher temps you are looking for, particularly a soapstone one. Larger boxes hold geometrically larger charges of wood and can hold a much larger coal bed beneath it. The volume increases as the cube of the sides, but the surface area only increases as the square. Therefore, increases in surface area are proportionally smaller than increases in firebox size, so surface temps get higher faster in big stoves. You can't judge a firewood's intrinsic heat qualities by the surface temp of your stove. You just don't have enough room in your stove period. I'm sure that the blue beech and black birch will do it for you better than anything, so you're lucky to get your hands on it. Stock up whenever you can.

I used to burn a lot of hard maple in my Scandia 118. That has a very lively burn with a long, hot flame path. Much bigger box as well. Split small, it could make that little stove put out a scary amount of heat. BTW, I didn't say red maple is bad wood, just that if I am paying for maple I much prefer hard maple. I think it is a better general firewood than cherry, but there are other reasons why I like cherry that have more to do with my acquisition and storage habits. Like in, I don't like 2-3 years worth of wood crowding up my property. I used to be (still am, sort of) in the fine musical instrument business, and I already look like enough of a woodchuck to the classical set without my house being surrounded by stacks of cord wood. Come spring, you'd hardly know I'm a full time burner. I also don't like to double handle the wood, or carry too much too far. Hence.... I'm a green wood purchaser every fall.

Cherry and white ash fit the bill for me best. I pay more for less with the cherry, but it dries super fast and burns great within a few weeks inside storage. Much of its water is free water that releases rather quickly. Ash is low in water on the stump, and it just gets better as it dries by the stove. It has great heat output and is my first choice, but this year all I could find cheap was cherry. Neither one would be ideal for the heat output you are trying to achieve with a 1.2 cu.ft. stove rated at 36,000 BTUs.

So oak's virtue, if I can extrapolate here, would be more that it puts out a modest amount of heat over a longer period of time per split-- ie, just what you want to have in your stove overnight when you're heading for the warmth of your bed?

Let's say it puts out a large amount of heat over a longer time. If your firebox is big enough for the coldest weather, it has just about everything going for it except the wait time. Around here, if you don't specify... you get red oak. My old stove couldn't burn it as hot and fast as a bigger stove can, and I don't have enough seasoned oak on hand to make an accurate assessment in my new stove. I'm confident I wouldn't be disappointed in the way my stove handles fully seasoned oak.

Any other thoughts on BTU per hour characteristics of other woods?

We used to have, but have lost unfortunately, a letter from my great-grandmother to my grandmother that included instructions about which type of wood to put in the cookstove for which purposes-- baking bread versus roasting meat or slow-simmering stews-- and I sure wish I had it now. I bet it would have a lot of clues about exactly that BTU per hour issue.

Sure wish I could get my paws on some cherry. Sounds like it's exactly what I need.

It's really all about learning what your needs are and how your stove(s) burn different wood. I never used a cat stove, and nobody I know has an EPA rated stove. My experience is based on what I've used and burned in. I'm a rather slow and stubborn learner. I didn't learn as much as I should have in the first 100 cord I burned, but now that I'm well into the second hundred, I'm starting to catch on.

I would absolutely love to have seen the letter you speak of. My grandmother used to cook on one of those old kitchen ovens. She would keep the tomatoes reducing into paste all winter, then bake guanti on the same stove. She must have acquired similar knowledge.


I get a lot of my ash and cherry from guys just the other side of the border from you in Argyle. There should be plenty around you in the hedgerows, white ash as well. If you keep calling and insist that is what you want, someone will cut it for you. I just don't think it will cut it on your tiny stove. But, if you want to come and exchange some of your blue beech for some of my cherry.... :cheese:

 

[gyrfalcon]

Thank you, Battenkiller (love your handle, btw).

Not too many folks get it. I get on boatbuilding forums and they think I like to destroy lofting battens. The Canadian canoeists all think I'm a deranged psychotic murderer. It's my home trout stream. Do you fish it?

Naw. Wish I did, though. I only had fresh-caught trout once in my life and I about died from how wonderful it was. Learning to fish is on my agenda for this spring, but lake perch is going to be more my speed as a latecomer to the sport, I suspect.

Looks like a real nice stove, but couldn't you find a smaller one? lol

Yeah, well, you said it. I'm quite proud, actually, of how well I've been able to get it to do for me. I picked it up used as a replacement for the toy box the previous owners of this house had, not expecting either the huge rise in oil prices or falling in love with wood heat. And then the financial crash, which has made it impossible to find the dough for a larger one plus the expansion of the hearth I'd need to accommodate it.

BTW, I didn't say red maple is bad wood, just that if I am paying for maple I much prefer hard maple.

Gotcha. Just because it's totally useless in my little firebox, I shouldn't draw the conclusion it's useless in a more reasonable stove.

I used to be (still am, sort of) in the fine musical instrument business

Meaning you make them? The classical set I used to hang with would think your wood stacks were marvelously exotic. They'd shudder at the thought of endangering their own fingers chucking firewood, but an instrument maker would be pretty much expected to be eccentric by their standards.

My old stove couldn't burn it as hot and fast as a bigger stove can, and I don't have enough seasoned oak on hand to make an accurate assessment in my new stove. I'm confident I wouldn't be disappointed in the way my stove handles fully seasoned oak.

Gotcha again. I'll tuck that info away for the day I can get a bigger stove in here.

I get a lot of my ash and cherry from guys just the other side of the border from you in Argyle. There should be plenty around you in the hedgerows, white ash as well. If you keep calling and insist that is what you want, someone will cut it for you. I just don't think it will cut it on your tiny stove. But, if you want to come and exchange some of your blue beech for some of my cherry.... :cheese:

Heh. Sorry, no trade. I'm actually a good bit further north than Argyle, right in the middle of the mess caused by the (late) Crown Point bridge closing. We get wood around here basically from neighbors with wood lots and a willingness to cut extra for a little cash. That generally means your standard "mixed hardwoods"-- rock maple, beech, black birch and ash. But from what I've learned through trial and error, backed up by experience and wisdom from you and others, I'm going to concentrate on the bb/bb combination as long as I'm running this little bitty stove.

Your thoughts on this have been very, very valuable, and I thank you for taking the time to spell them out.

 

[Wood Duck]

I think it makes sense to have several types of wood available, so that you can burn differently as needed. For BTUs per hour, and if you are around to reload the stove, I think pine or spruce would be worth a try. Once dry, (and it doesn't take long) softwood burns fast and hot, and might be better for quickly heating the stove, or to mix with denser hardwoods.

By the way, what is the tree you are calling 'Blue Beech?' Beech (Fagus grandifolia - the tree with the three-pointed beechnuts in the hairy cups) grows all over New England and gets to be a large tree. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) is a smaller tree with similar smooth bark, and is often called Blue Beech. Ironwood doesn't get real large, usually not more than 12 inches diameter and really isn't a full-sized tree most of the time. Both are good firewood, but Ironwood is supposed to be among the very best. If you have forests dominated by 'blue beech' then I guess you're talking about Beech, not Ironwood.

 

[Adios Pantalones]

We talk about oak here because it's most of what's available... seemingly. Takes longer to season. Smells good when it burns, splits easy when it's green.

I'd burn maple if that was more available, though they're somewhat in decline, so I'm less likely to cut them. White ash is excellent- dries super quick, very easy to split, high BTU's.

 

[gyrfalcon]

I think it makes sense to have several types of wood available, so that you can burn differently as needed. For BTUs per hour, and if you are around to reload the stove, I think pine or spruce would be worth a try. Once dry, (and it doesn't take long) softwood burns fast and hot, and might be better for quickly heating the stove, or to mix with denser hardwoods.

By the way, what is the tree you are calling 'Blue Beech?' Beech (Fagus grandifolia - the tree with the three-pointed beechnuts in the hairy cups) grows all over New England and gets to be a large tree. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) is a smaller tree with similar smooth bark, and is often called Blue Beech. Ironwood doesn't get real large, usually not more than 12 inches diameter and really isn't a full-sized tree most of the time. Both are good firewood, but Ironwood is supposed to be among the very best. If you have forests dominated by 'blue beech' then I guess you're talking about Beech, not Ironwood.

Good question, and you sent me to The Google to look this up. It's called "blue beech" around here, but I gather it's actually grandifolia. I'm mildly ashamed to say I'm familiar with it only from my firewood. I do know that various kinds of rock maple-- sugar maple -- combined with beech dominate the woods, and I see there's a particular kind of forest called Maple-Beech, which is what we have here. My area of the state is a good deal flatter (comparatively speaking) than the rest of VT and is primarily farmland, so forested areas are pretty much only along the tops and steeper sides of the low glacial ridges that run up and down the valley and have been used for a couple centuries for both firewood and lumber, so they're not dense.

We're so loaded with hardwood around here that nobody seems to cut softwoods, but if I'm likely to still be using this small stove next winter, I'll certainly ask about getting some pine or spruce thrown in, as you suggest.

 

[Wood Duck]

I think you're right that you are burning Beech (F. grandifolia). If it is a dominant large tree, that is Beech. I bet there are a few Ironwood or Blue Beech around too, but they aren't what gives Maple-Beech forest it's name. One nice thing about softwoods is that few people here burn them, so it is often free or cheap compared to hardwoods.

 

[ISeeDeadBTUs]

But, but, but, but, but-- everybody else here says silver maple is low heat and cherry is high.

NOT everybody :smirk:

Do not put Cherry in the GW when it's a cold night. But I can't compare it to silver maple as I don't cut that. The only Red Maple I end up with is if it was small and got in someone's way.

For all you whineasses . . . I'll trade ya whatever else I got for your Oak :lol:

 

[CrawfordCentury]

Rock Maple, Blue Beech, and Black Birch? Never seen them before.

Glad that the ironwood/hornbeam/blue beech thing got cleared up. Beech (real beech) is a fine firewood, grows best on rocky slopes. If you're hikin in the woods with someone in front of you that's inconsiderate about not letting branches at face height snap back, beech stands are the WORST. But fine firewood.

Now ironwood...yikes! Don't grow big, but what's there is about the most efficient dendrothermal specimen known to man.

Rock maple's what some call the sugar maples I grew up amongst. Compared to red maple, you'd think you were on a chain gang bustin up granite trying to make firewood out of the rounds. Worth the effort tho'. It's deep winter, and I'm well into my sugar stash. Only thing's better is oak. :coolsmile:

Black birch? Fine firewood, too. Tough splitting, I was surprised to learn. And the way it tenaciously holds onto the green moisture! Smells like Wrigleys coming outta the ole chimbley on a frosty morn'

 

[gyrfalcon]

Rock Maple, Blue Beech, and Black Birch? Never seen them before.

Glad that the ironwood/hornbeam/blue beech thing got cleared up. Beech (real beech) is a fine firewood, grows best on rocky slopes. If you're hikin in the woods with someone in front of you that's inconsiderate about not letting branches at face height snap back, beech stands are the WORST. But fine firewood.

Now ironwood...yikes! Don't grow big, but what's there is about the most efficient dendrothermal specimen known to man.

Rock maple's what some call the sugar maples I grew up amongst. Compared to red maple, you'd think you were on a chain gang bustin up granite trying to make firewood out of the rounds. Worth the effort tho'. It's deep winter, and I'm well into my sugar stash. Only thing's better is oak. :coolsmile:

Black birch? Fine firewood, too. Tough splitting, I was surprised to learn. And the way it tenaciously holds onto the green moisture! Smells like Wrigleys coming outta the ole chimbley on a frosty morn'

Never had birch beer? I can easily tell whether a bark-less hunk a wood is some of the birch because of that wonderful smell. I haven't had that much trouble splitting it, though, but you do get some ornery pieces with very twisted fibers sometimes. Nice thing about splitting rock maple is if you give it a real hard smack dead on, it just pops apart without any fuss because of that straight grain. Beech can be pretty twisty, too, sometimes.

 

[gpcollen1]

Beech - My first year with more than a bit of it - almost 2 cords. I love this wood and it is bone dry.

Oak - one big ass tree that is the dominant tree in many forest types. Oak-Hickry Forests are usually red oak. Oak-Hemlock are usually chestnut oak, a white oak that burns great. Many others for sure. I have some white oak mixed in with the dominant red oak, hickory, black/sweet birch and sugar maple on the hillside behind me.

Black birch - another good burner and great to chew the twigs.

 

[Battenkiller]

Black birch? Fine firewood, too. Tough splitting, I was surprised to learn. And the way it tenaciously holds onto the green moisture! Smells like Wrigleys coming outta the ole chimbley on a frosty morn'

So that's what black birch is, the stuff with the reddish bark that smells like birch beer when you split it?

Gotten some in mixed loads before. Never really impressed me, but then, it was a pretty wet wood when I tried to burn it. It literally dripped with sweet smelling sap. Seemed to get better after it sat inside for a few weeks. Seems I should have let it sit for a couple of years and I would have had some prime wood.

Didn't know blue beech was actually ironwood (hophornbeam?) either. Never burned that before that I know of, but I've burned a lot of American beech, and it is a fine firewood. Almost bought about ten acres of beech forest at $400/acre about 30 years ago, huge trees. Didn't really burn back then, but I was going to start once I built my house there. Never happened. Life throws you some nasty breaking balls sometimes.

 

[CrawfordCentury]

Never had birch beer? I can easily tell whether a bark-less hunk a wood is some of the birch because of that wonderful smell. I haven't had that much trouble splitting it, though, but you do get some ornery pieces with very twisted fibers sometimes. Nice thing about splitting rock maple is if you give it a real hard smack dead on, it just pops apart without any fuss because of that straight grain. Beech can be pretty twisty, too, sometimes.

I'm something of a conoisseur of the beverages of the olde timey sort. Birch beer's good, but make it Moxie for mine. Or else a frosty ginger beer or a sarsaparilla.

Wish I had your luck on the black birch. What I've handled might as well have been rubber tree the way the maul bounced off it.

The easy-splitting sugar maple I've had has been dead standing seasoned on the stump for a long lotta years. Buddy of mine gave me a half cord in the round a while back. This stuff was only 18 mos. or so. Also, bucked to 22", as opposed to the 16-18 I buck myself. That was some tough wood!

So that's what black birch is, the stuff with the reddish bark that smells like birch beer when you split it?

Gotten some in mixed loads before. Never really impressed me, but then, it was a pretty wet wood when I tried to burn it. It literally dripped with sweet smelling sap. Seemed to get better after it sat inside for a few weeks. Seems I should have let it sit for a couple of years and I would have had some prime wood.

Didn't know blue beech was actually ironwood (hophornbeam?) either. Never burned that before that I know of, but I've burned a lot of American beech, and it is a fine firewood. Almost bought about ten acres of beech forest at $400/acre about 30 years ago, huge trees. Didn't really burn back then, but I was going to start once I built my house there. Never happened. Life throws you some nasty breaking balls sometimes.

I might be misremembering, but I think hornbeam and hophornbeam might be different. Don't handle much. Not a beech, I do know. Wanna say they're relatives of the birches. Correct me if I'm wrong.

At least in Northern New England, American beech is prone to some kind of blight. Makes the smooth bark as pockmarked as an alcoholic Guatemalan whore two Johns from retirement. The blighted stuff is much more difficult to whack apart than the healthier specimens. Can't make any claim to universality on this, just my anecdotal experience.

 

[gyrfalcon]

Black birch? Fine firewood, too. Tough splitting, I was surprised to learn. And the way it tenaciously holds onto the green moisture! Smells like Wrigleys coming outta the ole chimbley on a frosty morn'

So that's what black birch is, the stuff with the reddish bark that smells like birch beer when you split it?

Gotten some in mixed loads before. Never really impressed me, but then, it was a pretty wet wood when I tried to burn it. It literally dripped with sweet smelling sap. Seemed to get better after it sat inside for a few weeks. Seems I should have let it sit for a couple of years and I would have had some prime wood.

Didn't know blue beech was actually ironwood (hophornbeam?) either. Never burned that before that I know of, but I've burned a lot of American beech, and it is a fine firewood. Almost bought about ten acres of beech forest at $400/acre about 30 years ago, huge trees. Didn't really burn back then, but I was going to start once I built my house there. Never happened. Life throws you some nasty breaking balls sometimes.

I think probably most birch smells a bit like that. But I don't see much in the way of "reddish" in the black birch, it really is black at least on the outside. Mature trees have incredibly thick and solid reddish underbark, though, with a surface bark that looks a lot like any birch, only black and certainly not so loosely peeling as the white birches.

My experience with black birch is that it's a bear to burn when it's not dry, but it dries very quickly-- but only after being split. That heavy bark really seems to keep the moisture in the wood. I have some of it that was only cut this spring, not split until late August. Then I split it down further to 2 and 3-inch pieces and stacked it loosely outside in full sun and wind, and I've been burning it easily since November and getting nice hot fires from it without much hissing or charcoaling. The rock maple that got the same treatment is noticeably less hot in the stove.

The beech -- universally called "blue beech" around here, even though it isn't really, because its bark is distinctly bluish-tinged -- is the same.

 

[gyrfalcon]

I might be misremembering, but I think hornbeam and hophornbeam might be different. Don't handle much. Not a beech, I do know. Wanna say they're relatives of the birches. Correct me if I'm wrong.

At least in Northern New England, American beech is prone to some kind of blight. Makes the smooth bark as pockmarked as an alcoholic Guatemalan whore two Johns from retirement. The blighted stuff is much more difficult to whack apart than the healthier specimens. Can't make any claim to universality on this, just my anecdotal experience.

Yeah, hornbeam and hophornbeam are different things. Actual Blue Beech isn't beech, it's really hornbeam, so I read. What folks around here call "blue beech" I've just learned from a poster here isn't, it's actually American beech. Both hornbeam and hophornbeam are related to birch, according to what I read.

So hornbeam = "blue beech," but isn't actually beech
"blue beech" in the NE isn't, it's American beech
hophornbeam-- something altogether different

Common names are such fun!! Makes you realize why scientific types stick to the Latin names.