More wood in a pickup bed, split or unsplit?

[turnkey4099]

why handle it twice.

Because the splitter is at home and the trees are 15 to 25 miles away. I bust 'em down to a size I can load and no smaller.

Harry K

 

[user 35682]

With all the time spent debating this, we could probably all just drive out to the poster's house to help move, split, and stack the wood.

Strictly mathematically speaking, split wood (with a smaller diameter) will stack tighter. Conceptually, imagine a box that’s 4’ cubed. You could not fit a large ball that measured 4’-1” around into the box, but if you broke it down into marble-sized balls then they would all fit.

As Curlycherry1 pointed out, however, there is a lot of inefficiently with manually stacking wood in real life. I would suspect that if he restacked the wood more efficiently (i.e. with triangular shapes alternating between pointing up and down, etc.), and maximized the space then we’d see the net area of the wood pile decrease.

 

[olyman]

With all the time spent debating this, we could probably all just drive out to the poster's house to help move, split, and stack the wood.

Strictly mathematically speaking, split wood (with a smaller diameter) will stack tighter. Conceptually, imagine a box that’s 4’ cubed. You could not fit a large ball that measured 4’-1” around into the box, but if you broke it down into marble-sized balls then they would all fit.

As Curlycherry1 pointed out, however, there is a lot of inefficiently with manually stacking wood in real life. I would suspect that if he restacked the wood more efficiently (i.e. with triangular shapes alternating between pointing up and down, etc.), and maximized the space then we’d see the net area of the wood pile decrease.

nope--done it--you can get far more wood unsplit,than split, in a truck, esp when you stack the smallest pieces you want keep in between the big rounds--

 

[turnkey4099]

With all the time spent debating this, we could probably all just drive out to the poster's house to help move, split, and stack the wood.

Strictly mathematically speaking, split wood (with a smaller diameter) will stack tighter. Conceptually, imagine a box that’s 4’ cubed. You could not fit a large ball that measured 4’-1” around into the box, but if you broke it down into marble-sized balls then they would all fit.

As Curlycherry1 pointed out, however, there is a lot of inefficiently with manually stacking wood in real life. I would suspect that if he restacked the wood more efficiently (i.e. with triangular shapes alternating between pointing up and down, etc.), and maximized the space then we’d see the net area of the wood pile decrease.

That is what people wouild like to believe but it doesn't work. It comes down to fact. You cannot pack a given volume of wood into a space less than what mother nature has already done.

I provided a method where you can test it sitting in front of the TV and curley showed you pictures of his experiment. If you doubt it, and it seems you do, do your own test...we'll wait.

Harry K

 

[Mike PA]

Strictly mathematically speaking, split wood (with a smaller diameter) will stack tighter. Conceptually, imagine a box that’s 4’ cubed. You could not fit a large ball that measured 4’-1” around into the box, but if you broke it down into marble-sized balls then they would all fit.
QUOTE]

Sorry, but you are wrong. Air space increases with decreasing grain size. Well-sorted sand holds more water than well-sorted gravel. Try it.

 

[r8ingbull]

Strictly mathematically speaking, split wood (with a smaller diameter) will stack tighter. Conceptually, imagine a box that’s 4’ cubed. You could not fit a large ball that measured 4’-1” around into the box, but if you broke it down into marble-sized balls then they would all fit.
QUOTE]

Sorry, but you are wrong. Air space increases with decreasing grain size. Well-sorted sand holds more water than well-sorted gravel. Try it.

These questions all come down to scale. The size of the item you are looking to stack in comparison to the space given. If I have a 3'x'3'x16" box, I cannot place a 38"x16" firewood round in it...Simply cannot do it. However, if I split that same round into small enough splits, it will fit the box.

The box is 20,736ci, and the round is 18,136 ci. 13% smaller. Certainly not practical, but 'Strictly mathematically speaking' he is right.

It is all about the scale. I can fit a lot more gravel in my coffee cup than I can fit rocks.

 

[Mike PA]

Ok, for the ball example he gave. But, we aren't asking how to fit a round ball into a square opening. :monkey: The example he gave doesn't compare well to his first statement that split wood will stack tighter than rounds and that is what I am responding to. I'm still relating it more to the original question. Given that premise, it is wrong.

Split the 4'1" ball, stack it, and see how much volume it then occupies. That comparison would be apt for the situation.

 

[Curlycherry1]

As Curlycherry1 pointed out, however, there is a lot of inefficiently with manually stacking wood in real life. I would suspect that if he restacked the wood more efficiently (i.e. with triangular shapes alternating between pointing up and down, etc.), and maximized the space then we’d see the net area of the wood pile decrease.

Although I did not do a super, super tight job of packing the wood in the rack, I did do what a reasonably skilled person would do. I consider myself more than just moderatly skilled in stacking wood because I have stacked literally over 10,000 face cords in my life, no kidding. So maybe I did not study each piece for 5 minutes before placing it, I did pack them pretty darn tight in the restack. Also, I placed a piece of plywood across the front of the stack once it was formed and I shook and tapped on the rack for well over a minute to vibrate the pieces tighter together. They are as tight or tighter than the average person would get.

The 4' rounds are being made to do the next phase of the experiment. Who wants to go on record with an official prediction of split volume when two 4' rounds are split up?

 

[ericjeeper]

another example.. Take a round that will just fit into a five gallon bucket.. Now split it, and try to get it back in. good luck

 

[Dalmatian90]

From the 1918 book "Forestry in New England:"

In selling wood there are two units both called cords which are apt to be confused The standard cord is made up of wood cut 4 four feet long while the stove wood or running cord as it is called in northern New England or run for short is made up of wood 16 inches long. Each is a pile 8 feet long and 4 feet high It will be seen that the standard cord contains 128 cubic feet while the run contains only one third as much. Since the shorter the pieces the less amount of crookedness a cord of stovewood actually contains a little more than one third the volume of a standard cord. Cords made up of thick pieces contain more wood than those of small pieces while round sticks give a higher wood volume than split ones of about the same size.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hl...nd forestry&pg=PA184#v=onepage&q=cord&f=false

So now into the great rounds v. split debate, we can add the length of firewood (longer = less wood), and big v. small wedges (small = less wood).

 

[jjett84724]

another example.. Take a round that will just fit into a five gallon bucket.. Now split it, and try to get it back in. good luck

This is a perfect analogy.

Go buy yourself a truck bed trailer and put rails on it. That will make your trips worthwhile.

 

[AKKAMAAN]

+1 :agree2: The stack always grows when it is split.

I agree with you KsWoodsMan....
Have scaled both timber and pulpwood, and the tinier pulpwood allways count more air than the bigger timber logs...10-15% differense...so the smaller pieces the more total air built in between the logs...try to put a round back together after splitting it, you will see that it is hard to get all way back to the original diameter, and that is perfectly stacked....

Lets do an experiment with some help from anyone from you guys that are splitting just now....sample out , lets say 20 rounds that are pretty evenly round, very low taper, bark off, and easy to split. Stack them in a square box, type PU bed or trailer, and measure the exact dimensions....take also some pictures from three different directions on the stack.

Then measure exact lenght and diameter, in a log sheet and publish here on this thread and we calculate the exact volume of wood!

At last stack the split wood in the same box, measure and take pictures...

And after that we can talk what is more air and makes the bigger stack.....

VOLONTEERS??????

 

[turnkey4099]

I agree with you KsWoodsMan....
Have scaled both timber and pulpwood, and the tinier pulpwood allways count more air than the bigger timber logs...10-15% differense...so the smaller pieces the more total air built in between the logs...try to put a round back together after splitting it, you will see that it is hard to get all way back to the original diameter, and that is perfectly stacked....

Lets do an experiment with some help from anyone from you guys that are splitting just now....sample out , lets say 20 rounds that are pretty evenly round, very low taper, bark off, and easy to split. Stack them in a square box, type PU bed or trailer, and measure the exact dimensions....take also some pictures from three different directions on the stack.

Then measure exact lenght and diameter, in a log sheet and publish here on this thread and we calculate the exact volume of wood!

At last stack the split wood in the same box, measure and take pictures...

And after that we can talk what is more air and makes the bigger stack.....

VOLONTEERS??????

That differs only in scale from what Curly has done (and will do). We still have naysayers but I notice none of them are stepping up to do one of the easy expiraments. I was splitting today and almost succumbed to the urge to do what you suggest buy why do it? No different than Curlies post.

Harry K

 

[Wood Doctor]

+1 :agree2: The stack always grows when it is split.

+1. Take freshly picked carrots, cut the tops and roots off, and cram them into a large mason jar. Now remove those same carrots and cut them into 2" to 3" lengths and slice them up for salads. You will never get those sliced carrots back into the jar.

Try the same thing with whole potatoes and cut them for french fries.

 

[AKKAMAAN]

+1. Take freshly picked carrots, cut the tops and roots off, and cram them into a large mason jar. Now remove those same carrots and cut them into 2" to 3" lengths and slice them up for salads. You will never get those sliced carrots back into the jar.

Try the same thing with whole potatoes and cut them for french fries.

Very good examples WoodDoc...

 

[KsWoodsMan]

This thread is a riot!

Curly's scale mockup makes me think of the professor in Back to the future: "forgive the crudity of this model, I didn't have time to build it to scale or to paint it"




Curly if you still have the setup can you please try it again only with two 4" diameter dowels? I have a hunch the results will change with the larger rounds.

pi*2"*2" x qty 2 rounds = 25 sq.in. face area
8*4" = 32" available area in the rack

Line #1 will always be smaller than line #2, but that difference is a lot bigger if you start with bigger rounds.

By some definitions a cord of wood includes about 20% - 25% of air space between the splits and rounds. 80% of 32 sq. inches is going to be close to 25 sq. inches. This one example will will be very close to the break-even point. IMHO

Been down this road before.

 

[Wood Doctor]

By some definitions a cord of wood includes about 20% - 25% of air space between the splits and rounds. 80% of 32 sq. inches is going to be close to 25 sq. inches. This one example will will be very close to the break-even point. IMHO

Been down this road before.

+1. Take a solid block of wood 2" x 8" x 8" (128 cubic inches), cut from the end of an 8 x 8. Split it into about 100 pieces with a hammer and chisel. Now stack the pieces into one row at tight as you can. Compare that stack to the block that you started with.

'nuff said. :bang:

 

[Steve NW WI]

Is it just me, or is it not a coincidence that this thread getting this detailed and crappy weather in most of the eastern half of the country lately?

Cabin fever seems to be here early! Let's hear it for some good cuttin and splittin weather for the weekend!

 

[Wood Doctor]

Ash is Still the Best Firewood

Is it just me, or is it not a coincidence that this thread getting this detailed and crappy weather in most of the eastern half of the country lately?

Cabin fever seems to be here early! Let's hear it for some good cuttin and splittin weather for the weekend!

Split or unsplit, I have never found a good piece of ash that I never wanted to warm up with.
:biggrinbounce2:

 

[gallegosmike]

If you have 3/4 or 1 ton truck, get a 20ft trailer and be done with it. I dont normally have access to large trees like youve got. I mostly cut stuff in the 6" to 18" range for firewood. It is pretty easy to buck down to 18" length logs and stack in the truck. We have metal cage and can transport about 1 cord at a time.