Soaked Uncovered Stack moisture content Readings.

[bigealta]

I suspect the outside is just a bit rotten and throwing the meter off. You can't get 5.5% wood outside naturally unless you're in a legit desert. The ambient humidity is just too high here. I think 12-16% is perfection in the northeast.

That reading was taken after 24 hrs next to the woodstove. It's basically a kiln. But yeah it's soft and the meter didn't even want to read it, but after 5-10 seconds buried in it it gave up the 5.5 read.

So really the point is that 1 day by the woodstove dries out splits soaked in rain for 4-5 days. That's the exterior. The interiors are not much affected if at all by the winter rain or the hot woodstove.

 

[Wildflush]

I agree with not needing the MM much; the wood was under a roof for three + years. If the roof is good, the wood is good.

The reason for the pins needing to be in (for a more accurate measurement) is two factors.
1. Contact resistance. A two-point measurement is susceptible to the influence of the resistance between metal and wood. (A four probe measurement would not be.)
This resistance is in series with the resistance of the wood. I.e. it adds.
The smaller the contact area is (shallower pins), the higher the contact resistance. The higher the resistance of the circuit the lower the moisture content read out. So shallow pins give an artificially low incorrect moisture content.
2. Spreading resistance. The more the measurement is two-dimensional, the higher the spreading resistance in the wood. The more 3D the measurement is, the lower. This has to do with the electric field distribution in the wood.
The deeper the pins are, the more 3D the measurement is, and the less the spreading resistance adds to the measured value.

Bottom line, the deeper the pins the better the measurements (less systematic error that suggests drier wood than it is).

After all the pins are there for a reason. Otherwise they would have made a surface contact probe without pins to push into the wood.

Regardless, it's not going to add 10 pct to your moisture. A few percent yes.(and then a few percent if you measured at 32 F rather than 70 F as per the calibration).

Thank you for your technical reply but again I don’t see much difference in my fresh split readings. I resplit another large piece of oak that has been near the stove for a day that was at the end of a stack and too large for my liking. Still a little pink inside. I got 19.3 with how I push the pins in and 19.7 jamming it in without breaking them. Not a 2% difference. I mention above I want 18% and under to leave a margin of error. These splits go back in the stacks.

I also tested a 4” oak split that I know is dry. 3 days by the stove. 14.1. Vs. 14.3 a tighter variance.

Also it makes a difference when you test after you split. I also find no reason to risk braking pins for the extra .4 in variance from my test above with the large split.

 

[stoveliker]

That's fine. Ymmv
I've seen 2.5 pct difference on maple. Oak is hard, and indeed it's easier to break the pins. Not done that yet.

I'm the end, measuring with pins not far enough in, and at 35 F, I found a cumulative difference of more than 5 pct. Done this 4-5 times with different pieces, different age etc.
Given that I don't think these moisture meters are absolute in their correctness (see wood species they are calibrated for), I try to get the smallest negative error (i.e. closest to the real value that is going to be higher than the read out).

But if you find a way that consistently gives a (same) number for wood that works for you - then you calibrated your MM to your stove, and I understand that that works for the binary decision of "use or not yet use".

 

[Wildflush]

That's fine. Ymmv
I've seen 2.5 pct difference on maple. Oak is hard, and indeed it's easier to break the pins. Not done that yet.

I'm the end, measuring with pins not far enough in, and at 35 F, I found a cumulative difference of more than 5 pct. Done this 4-5 times with different pieces, different age etc.
Given that I don't think these moisture meters are absolute in their correctness (see wood species they are calibrated for), I try to get the smallest negative error (i.e. closest to the real value that is going to be higher than the read out).

But if you find a way that consistently gives a (same) number for wood that works for you - then you calibrated your MM to your stove, and I understand that that works for the binary decision of "use or not yet use".

Do you test at 35 F? I ask since Ive always been taught to bring wood in for a few days and then split for a reading. I think by leaving a margin of error of 2% I will always be 20 or under.

 

[stoveliker]

I test at 70. Some folks don't (not saying you are) though, and my point is that all such errors add up. Huge difference between 25 pct and 20 pct, or 17 and 22.

 

[Caw]

I test at 70. Some folks don't (not saying you are) though, and my point is that all such errors add up. Huge difference between 25 pct and 20 pct, or 17 and 22.

Give you $5 to come reload for me tonight so I can go to sleep!

 

[Wildflush]

Give you $5 to come reload for me tonight so I can go to sleep!

😂

 

[bigealta]

I don't know what else to say. In this Ash the video clearly shows the reading go from 16.9 to 20.9 when fully inserted. That's a big difference.

Anyone could easily say they are burning about 17% moisture when really they are burning 21%. That's certainly enough difference to at least be cognizant of when you do whip out your meter.

Old school banging might just be more accurate that a badly used meter.

 

[bigealta]

Ah not that it matters but What i was saying was Ash above was actually Sassafras. Got confused as the ash was in the pile right next to it. The sassafras is pretty soft and that's why i was able to sink the pins so deep.