Why I Like to Work Big Rounds

[Wood Doctor]

There is some simple math involved. Consider that a 4" dia log is about right as the foundation log for firewood. The idea is to get as many 4" dia logs as you can from a tree. That means that most of the tree has to be split. Logs below 4" dia. are still good, but as you drop to 2" dia. or less, you suddenly have tinder and kindling.

Eventually you run out of branches that approximate 4" dia. So, you move on to the big stuff. Take a look at this list:

4" dia. round yields 1 log unsplit
8" dia. round yields 4 logs when split
16" dia. round yields 16 logs when split
32" dia. round yields 64 logs when split

Look at the huge jump in yield between 16" dia. and 32" dia. That's because as you double the diameter of the round, you quadruple the number of logs that it yields. My all-time record is 50 logs that I obtained from a log that was about 29" dia. Anything larger I have to noodle in half with the chainsaw to move around under the splitter.

It's a simple principle, but I wonder how many of us have figured it out like this. WDYT? :greenchainsaw:

 

[Beefie]

Thats good math Doc , I don't split stuff that small but your math makes a lot of sense.

Beefie

 

[Curlycherry1]

Time to drag out the photos of the scale model experiment that was run a few months ago.

Exhibit A :scale model (1" = 1ft) of 4' diameter rounds before splitting and put into a scale model firewood rack:

Exhibit B: Said wood from above rounds split and repiled into the same firewood rack. Note the change in volume.

Exhibit C: "Mixed" firewood rounds from a typical 12" diameter tree with some 4" rounds thrown in to even it out.

Exhibit D: 12" Rounds split into firewood and put back into the same rack as before. Also note the change in volume, pretty much exactly the same change as with the bigger rounds.

Any further questions class?

 

[treemandan]

Time to drag out the photos of the scale model experiment that was run a few months ago.

Exhibit A :scale model (1" = 1ft) of 4' diameter rounds before splitting and put into a scale model firewood rack:

Exhibit B: Said wood from above rounds split and repiled into the same firewood rack. Note the change in volume.

Exhibit C: "Mixed" firewood rounds from a typical 12" diameter tree with some 4" rounds thrown in to even it out.

Exhibit D: 12" Rounds split into firewood and put back into the same rack as before. Also note the change in volume, pretty much exactly the same change as with the bigger rounds.

Any further questions class?

Just one: You know yer nuts right?

 

[Curlycherry1]

Just one: You know yer nuts right?

This came up as a discussion last fall or thereabouts and I have split so much wood in my life that I just could not let it get answered once and for all. So with about 1 hour of work in my shop we have photographic and quantitative proof of the results.

Rep for insanity gladly accepted.

 

[NeoTree]

There is some simple math involved. Consider that a 4" dia log is about right as the foundation log for firewood. The idea is to get as many 4" dia logs as you can from a tree. That means that most of the tree has to be split. Logs below 4" dia. are still good, but as you drop to 2" dia. or less, you suddenly have tinder and kindling.

Eventually you run out of branches that approximate 4" dia. So, you move on to the big stuff. Take a look at this list:

4" dia. round yields 1 log unsplit
8" dia. round yields 4 logs when split
16" dia. round yields 16 logs when split
32" dia. round yields 64 logs when split

Look at the huge jump in yield between 16" dia. and 32" dia. That's because as you double the diameter of the round, you quadruple the number of logs that it yields. My all-time record is 50 logs that I obtained from a log that was about 29" dia. Anything larger I have to noodle in half with the chainsaw to move around under the splitter.

It's a simple principle, but I wonder how many of us have figured it out like this. WDYT? :greenchainsaw:

so theoretically you are taking all split logs to be 4" diameter, or have an end surface area of 12.56, = (pi)r^2 = 3.14(2^2), this could yeild a multitude of square peices that are roughly 3"x4" , and triangular peices that are roughly 5" high by 5" wide. I guess it works, but the sizes are bit small

 

[tjbier]

I cut some ASH last weekend and got 22 pieces from a 33" at the base. You must split them small.

This came up as a discussion last fall or thereabouts and I have split so much wood in my life that I just could not let it get answered once and for all. So with about 1 hour of work in my shop we have photographic and quantitative proof of the results.

Rep for insanity gladly accepted.

LOL, that was a great post!

 

[tomtrees58]

o man you have time on your hands:jawdrop: nice little cord wood racks tom trees

 

[Beefie]

This came up as a discussion last fall or thereabouts and I have split so much wood in my life that I just could not let it get answered once and for all. So with about 1 hour of work in my shop we have photographic and quantitative proof of the results.

Rep for insanity gladly accepted.

I repped ya for insanity and good proof in the pic.

Beefie

 

[Wife'nHubby]

Any further questions class?

So... what would you end up with if you stacked them all 'bark up'? - just kidding! Good lesson, teacher!

Shari

 

[stihl sawing]

You can definitely get a truckload faster with the bigger rounds with less trips carrying them to load. They are harder to move around but i just roll them up to the back of the truck and noodle them down so they can be picked up to put in the truck.

 

[ctrees4$]

Great effort on the lesson buuuut...If you have 2 10" rounds and you split 1 into 50 pieces,you still have the same amount of wood out of both pieces.The only differance is one will take up more room and one will burn longer.:sword:

 

[NeoTree]

Time to drag out the photos of the scale model experiment that was run a few months ago.

Exhibit A :scale model (1" = 1ft) of 4' diameter rounds before splitting and put into a scale model firewood rack:

Exhibit B: Said wood from above rounds split and repiled into the same firewood rack. Note the change in volume.

Exhibit C: "Mixed" firewood rounds from a typical 12" diameter tree with some 4" rounds thrown in to even it out.

Exhibit D: 12" Rounds split into firewood and put back into the same rack as before. Also note the change in volume, pretty much exactly the same change as with the bigger rounds.

Any further questions class?

just a side note from a calculus approach here i've been thinking about. Lets say we have a bunch of round logs like in your picture "exhibit C". There should be less wasted space with this scenario because of the smaller diameter of the wood. Thus there would be more split wood, as slightly evidenced in your picture. Looks like it's stacked better.

There would be no wasted space if the diameter of the wood was infantesantly small, which is impossible. But, the smaller the diameter of the wood, the less space will be wasted in between logs. It's a simple calc approach, as the diameter go's to zero, the limit of the containter is reached, here just base times height.

Not really the topic on hand, just thinking out loud I guess

 

[kodiakyardboy]

Finally photographic evidence of the "fluff factor" I have argued the fact that a cord of rounds fluffs up to more than a cord after splitting, but have had a few friends argue against it. Rep on the way for your effort. I also would rather handle 6 or 8 monster rounds than a pile of smaller ones when cutting wood.

 

[luvsaws]

Great thread

Good information,like Myth busters

 

[Haywire Haywood]

I like big rounds too. The difference is not in the amount of wood you end up with, but the amount of cutting required to get that amount of wood.

In exhibit A, you've made 2 cuts to fill the rack and in exhibit B, you've made 30, 40, 50 cuts to fill the rack. That's a lot of moving and bending over and carrying.

edit... I take that back, you'll have to quarter the big rounds to get them on the splitter, so one more vertical noodling cut and 2 more to make quarters, so there's 8 cuts there in 'A' to fill the rack.

Ian

 

[NeoTree]

I also would rather handle 6 or 8 monster rounds than a pile of smaller ones when cutting wood.

Definately, as long as you have a friend! lol

 

[Curlycherry1]

just a side note from a calculus approach here i've been thinking about. Lets say we have a bunch of round logs like in your picture "exhibit C". There should be less wasted space with this scenario because of the smaller diameter of the wood. Thus there would be more split wood, as slightly evidenced in your picture. Looks like it's stacked better.

There would be no wasted space if the diameter of the wood was infantesantly small, which is impossible. But, the smaller the diameter of the wood, the less space will be wasted in between logs. It's a simple calc approach, as the diameter go's to zero, the limit of the containter is reached, here just base times height.

Not really the topic on hand, just thinking out loud I guess

I hated calc in college. That said I used the "real" approach and as I stacked those pieces in the racks for both types of rounds, I shook, pounded, vibrated and made sure those pieces were settled as tight together as they could possibly be. They may not look tight, but they are.

 

[Beaver eager]

I'm still waiting to see the tiny splitting maul used in the experiment.

Oh and there is now way your getting 64 pieces from a 32" round. Unless your talking kindling.

 

[Haywire Haywood]

I just happen to be going out to start processing a 42" oak trunk today. I'll take some pics.

Ian