True or False??? A cord of rounds...

[valekbrothers]

Firewood Stacking..

The "saying" I was taught as a youngster was: You want gaps large enough for a mouse to fit between the pieces of wood, but you want them small enough that the cat can't follow.

Also, when you are stacking the wood, I start with the bottom pieces with the bark side down. All other rows are stacked with the bark side up.
I'm not sure if this actually helps to shed water or not, just the way I have done it for years.......

Hope my 2¢ was worth it.

 

[Curlycherry1]

Ahem! Children, do we have to keep going over this? My model studies nailed this myth and showed it to be false. I even shook, rattled, coerced and carefully stacked the pieces in my experiment so as to make the piles as reasonably tight as could be done by normal stacking.

Bottom line is that splitting makes the overall volume of wood grow. Case dismissed. Anyone that still thinks otherwise is going to get a whuppin.

 

[howellhandmade]

When I was a kid I worked part time stacking wood for an old man (probably about the age I am now). One day he came over and looked at one of my stacks and said' Boy, I don't mind a rabbit running through a stack once in a while. But I don't want the dog to be able to follow it.
I've alway's considered that as a rule of thumb, but I suppose it could be an "industry standard"

Andy

Everybody's grandpa used to say stuff like that. But I'd like to see a stack of wood that a dog could run through. Or a cat. Unless the splits are enormous, my feeling is that a stack would stop being a stack a long time before gaps that big were consistently achieved.

Jack

 

[teatersroad]

If it's not ready for the woodstove/fireplace, it's not firewood. A cord is a measure of firewood, 128cf, tightly stacked. So, unless the rounds are small enough to constitute firewood, the have no business being included in the measure of a 'cord'.

Oil Mix, Cord wood, God, and Politics.

 

[redprospector]

Everybody's grandpa used to say stuff like that. But I'd like to see a stack of wood that a dog could run through. Or a cat. Unless the splits are enormous, my feeling is that a stack would stop being a stack a long time before gaps that big were consistently achieved.

Jack

The "old man" was exagerating a little to make his point. Did a good job too, 40 years later and I still remember his words. I think it was his way of saying "tighten it up a little boy". I probably wouldn't have remembered that.

Andy

 

[cowtipper]

Ahem! Children, do we have to keep going over this? My model studies nailed this myth and showed it to be false. I even shook, rattled, coerced and carefully stacked the pieces in my experiment so as to make the piles as reasonably tight as could be done by normal stacking.

Bottom line is that splitting makes the overall volume of wood grow. Case dismissed. Anyone that still thinks otherwise is going to get a whuppin.

If I may Curlycherry... ... the wood is not growing but the space it takes up grows...

 

[turnkey4099]

When I was a kid I worked part time stacking wood for an old man (probably about the age I am now). One day he came over and looked at one of my stacks and said' Boy, I don't mind a rabbit running through a stack once in a while. But I don't want the dog to be able to follow it.
I've alway's considered that as a rule of thumb, but I suppose it could be an "industry standard"

Andy

The version I have seen in some 'wooding' books is: "Stacked so a mouse can run through it but the cat can't follow"

I'm currently working Black Locust. A cord of rounds aftr splitting will be at least 1 1/4 cord or more. That stuff does not split 'neat' and stacks with lots of air space.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

Ahem! Children, do we have to keep going over this? My model studies nailed this myth and showed it to be false. I even shook, rattled, coerced and carefully stacked the pieces in my experiment so as to make the piles as reasonably tight as could be done by normal stacking.

Bottom line is that splitting makes the overall volume of wood grow. Case dismissed. Anyone that still thinks otherwise is going to get a whuppin.

Amen! If the moderators would just make that a sticky as more than one person has requested we could quit repeating ourselves every 6 months.
Harry K

 

[DJ4wd]

I just turn and reposition each piece so that it fits the best against the others.

 

[logbutcher]

(1) Take a bunch of raw carrots, cross cut them into 2" to 3" lengths and pack them into an ordinary Mason jar.

(2) Dump them out and slice them all along their length into quarters, sixths, and/or eighths like French fries. Use a French fry slicer if you have one.

You will never get the carrots back into that same jar. Case dismnissed.

Righto bango.

1 cord = A PILE/STACK/THING 4' X 4' X 8'
Case dismissed #2.:agree2:

Please: no "ricks". No "face" %$#@&s. No "throw" cords. No ""banana" cords. Just a cord relative to what is piled/stacked. No state "regs". You got rounds in a pile 4x4x8...it's a cord.
You got splits stacked 4x4x8...it's a cord.
You got moose turds piled 4x4x8...it's a cord (dry 'em out, polish 'em, you got jewelry, no smell unless your significant other gets too hot).

Kindly refer to past empty discussions on "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot: What is a Cord ? " Thank You...Thank You very much (E. Presley).

JMNSHO

 

[Curlycherry1]

If it's not ready for the woodstove/fireplace, it's not firewood. A cord is a measure of firewood, 128cf, tightly stacked. So, unless the rounds are small enough to constitute firewood, the have no business being included in the measure of a 'cord'.

Oil Mix, Cord wood, God, and Politics.

Oh contrare'. A cord is a measure of Pulp wood originally, not firewood. It was used to measure pulp wood which was used to make paper long before it was used as a measure of firewood. The 4' length of the pieces was chosen because a man with a pulp hook could spike one end of the log and use his hand on the other and easily toss the log onto a skid or truck for hauling to the mill. Pulp wood back then was pine and so pieces of pine from ~4" to ~15" in diameter and 4' long could be loaded by hand because machinery to move wood was not available. The 4' high by 8' long dimensions were chosen because a good pulp cutter could cut 4 full cords by hand in a day. One in the morning, one in the afternoon. I also heard that the 4' and 8' dimensions were chosen because a cord of pulp wood (pine) weighs just about 1 US ton. Thus it made it easy to guess the weight of a fully loaded truck or train.

The origin of the 4' high by 8' long was told to me by an old pulp cutter so it may or may not be true. The 4' length of the logs is documented in plenty of forestry history pages.

The important point is that a cord was a measure of pulp wood long before it was

 

[teatersroad]

I'll accept that. My point remains the same though. When speaking of measures of firewood.

 

[redprospector]

Oh contrare'. A cord is a measure of Pulp wood originally, not firewood. It was used to measure pulp wood which was used to make paper long before it was used as a measure of firewood. The 4' length of the pieces was chosen because a man with a pulp hook could spike one end of the log and use his hand on the other and easily toss the log onto a skid or truck for hauling to the mill. Pulp wood back then was pine and so pieces of pine from ~4" to ~15" in diameter and 4' long could be loaded by hand because machinery to move wood was not available. The 4' high by 8' long dimensions were chosen because a good pulp cutter could cut 4 full cords by hand in a day. One in the morning, one in the afternoon. I also heard that the 4' and 8' dimensions were chosen because a cord of pulp wood (pine) weighs just about 1 US ton. Thus it made it easy to guess the weight of a fully loaded truck or train.

The origin of the 4' high by 8' long was told to me by an old pulp cutter so it may or may not be true. The 4' length of the logs is documented in plenty of forestry history pages.

The important point is that a cord was a measure of pulp wood long before it was

I only found one thing I didn't agree with (I hate it when that happens ). Unless Pine is a lot lighter there than it is here. Ponderosa Pine (around here anyway) weighs on average about 4200 lbs. per cord.
I wish it only weighed 1 ton per cord, because then I could get twice as much on my trailer. But it would probably only be worth half as much then.

Andy

 

[komatsuvarna]

Dont know about anywere else, but the pine here in Tennessee Is probably CLOSE to 1 ton a cord. Definitely not as heavy as ponderosa.

 

[Curlycherry1]

I only found one thing I didn't agree with (I hate it when that happens ). Unless Pine is a lot lighter there than it is here. Ponderosa Pine (around here anyway) weighs on average about 4200 lbs. per cord.
I wish it only weighed 1 ton per cord, because then I could get twice as much on my trailer. But it would probably only be worth half as much then.

Andy

It is ok to disagree. I disagree with your disagreement. My source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html

White pine which is common from where I was from weighs 22-31 pounds per cubic foot. 128*22= 2816 pounds per cord if the wood was 100% solid in the stack. Figuring about 30% air in a stacked cord = 2816*.70% = 1971 pounds per cord. Right about a ton per cord. YMMV. opcorn:

 

[redprospector]

It is ok to disagree. I disagree with your disagreement. My source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html

White pine which is common from where I was from weighs 22-31 pounds per cubic foot. 128*22= 2816 pounds per cord if the wood was 100% solid in the stack. Figuring about 30% air in a stacked cord = 2816*.70% = 1971 pounds per cord. Right about a ton per cord. YMMV. opcorn:

Hmmm. I knew I shouldn't have thrown those scale tickets away. 4200 lbs is fresh cut & green, but if it weighs 2000 lbs or less in the eastern US then it's no wonder you guy's don't like to burn pine. I think cardboard would weigh 2000 lbs per cord.

Andy

 

[komatsuvarna]

Hmmm. I knew I shouldn't have thrown those scale tickets away. 4200 lbs is fresh cut & green, but if it weighs 2000 lbs or less in the eastern US then it's no wonder you guy's don't like to burn pine. I think cardboard would weigh 2000 lbs per cord.

Andy

I take your word for it. The pine we have here is southern yellow pine, and white pine. Neither one as heavy as ponderosa. The white pine is heavier than the yellow. The yellow pine burns good,(and fast) but smokes like crazy. We have a very, very, good supply of hardwoods here and NOBODY burns pine, but you gotta make do with what you have.

 

[logbutcher]

1 cord Moose turds. My choice for profundity. Try stacking.

Kindly refer to study authored by Capote, Madaronna, et.al. University of Sakachawaun 1949, 1956, 1971 in the Journal of American Forestry defining The Cord. It is to paraphrase: ".....a pile of wood 4 feet by 4 feet by 8 feet..."
The End

P.S. This is not a discussion about pulp. Different animal C²1. This a random walk down an internet by those with not much to do. Flames be acomin.

Who Gives a Sierra.

 

[banshee67]

how many pieces of wood are in a chord?

 

[komatsuvarna]

how many pieces of wood are in a chord?

:monkey: None. A chord is something in music.