Sorry Harry, I find its easier to lead the horse to water and let him decide if he wants a drink or not, you see a troll, I see a thirsty horse.
Another cord thread...MN legal definition...arrgh
- Thread starter Steve NW WI
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Sorry Harry, I find its easier to lead the horse to water and let him decide if he wants a drink or not, you see a troll, I see a thirsty horse.
heres a conversion of cord btu,s to that of natural gas/propane .. wood is a good buy for btu,s to that of fossil fuels btu,s sold by the same unit of measure.http://www.offroaders.com/tech/firewood-BTU.htm...
Last edited:
Coldfront
Addicted to ArboristSite
There is a outfit by me that sells log truck loads of peeled pulp wood by the ton, the company that buys it won't except any wood over 14% moisture. Selling firewood by the ton is just another can of worms. Green wood? How green? Are you going to check every log for moisture? The weight swing is a lot between dry and green.
Other commodities are sold every day by the ton, they all have defined moisture content to be classified a ton. I tried to point out that even milk has a limit on moisture. I don't see any reason why moisture in logs coudn't be checked the same way silage is tested. All you would have to do is make a few cuts with a saw take a average sample of the sawdust and weigh it, then stick 100 grams on a paper plate in the microwave and nuke it. When it stops getting lighter and before it starts to burn you have determined the average percentage of moisture. I agree though that there is a huge difference in weight between seasoned and green wood, there is also a huge difference between a cord of dry pine and a cord of dry oak.
Steve NW WI
Unwanted Riff Raff.
I think unless we're dealing with kiln dried wood, getting a representative sample of a large load would be a lot of effort. Using my grain example, they simply use a tube that is pushed down through the load and gives a sample that is a fairly good average of the whole load. Some places will sample 2-3 spots in a load. With a load of wood, you'd probably have to sample 20 random pieces per cord to get an accurate measure of what's in the load. Even then, 1 or 2 wet pieces could easily throw the average off.
Sampling might be easier than you think. Use a cordless skilsaw type saw to get a consistent sized sawdust, maybe a built in vacuum collector, and a grain moisture meter could be calibrated to measure it. The one my buddy has will sample 175 different kinds of grain, heck I didn't know there were 175 different grains!
Ahh, screw it. Too much like work. Sell em a cord, give em a cord, get paid for a cord. Mud ducks will just have to find a place to store the extra 8 ft³ I'm gonna give em.
Dalmatian90
Addicted to ArboristSite
yeah, Ohhhhh Kaaaaaayyyy...
We're complaining about folks who aren't honest selling a cord of wood which can be measured by anyone with a fourth grade education and a tape measure.
And you think they're going to sample their firewood in a representative way to establish moisture level and BTU density?
Pass over whatever you're smoking, 'cause the way today is going at work I could use a good hit too.
Firewood isn't a standardized commodity like propane, natural gas, corn, wheat, etc. Those are all bought by a few and sold to only a few (and that's not farmers and supermarket customers...that's grain elevators and processors which are the choke points in the system at which everything is standardized.) It's produced by many, marketed directly to many.
Either you test it through independent means, which require expense of bringing a testing company out to sample a load and stamp the logs they're certifying meet certain requirements, or you're back to just taking someone's word on what it is.
======
The test for firewood would probably involve some standardized drill bit to probe the center of logs, collecting a given volume of sawdust from that probe, weighing it, running it through a microwave and re-weighing until it stops going down, and then making a pronouncement on the current moisture % and the dry weight per volume. Not a tough procedure...but pretty useless for sales since you can't trust the seller and if you think buyers don't know what a cord is just wait till they have to follow a page long procedure requiring special tools.
We're complaining about folks who aren't honest selling a cord of wood which can be measured by anyone with a fourth grade education and a tape measure.
And you think they're going to sample their firewood in a representative way to establish moisture level and BTU density?
Pass over whatever you're smoking, 'cause the way today is going at work I could use a good hit too.
Firewood isn't a standardized commodity like propane, natural gas, corn, wheat, etc. Those are all bought by a few and sold to only a few (and that's not farmers and supermarket customers...that's grain elevators and processors which are the choke points in the system at which everything is standardized.) It's produced by many, marketed directly to many.
Either you test it through independent means, which require expense of bringing a testing company out to sample a load and stamp the logs they're certifying meet certain requirements, or you're back to just taking someone's word on what it is.
======
The test for firewood would probably involve some standardized drill bit to probe the center of logs, collecting a given volume of sawdust from that probe, weighing it, running it through a microwave and re-weighing until it stops going down, and then making a pronouncement on the current moisture % and the dry weight per volume. Not a tough procedure...but pretty useless for sales since you can't trust the seller and if you think buyers don't know what a cord is just wait till they have to follow a page long procedure requiring special tools.
Puff Puff pass HAHAHA!
Farmers buy and sell commodities all the time, and buying water can put a serious kink in the bottom line. I think the sample could be obtained by making a few cuts and using a hand held moisture meter for lumber. If not, I can't see why the sawdust from the cuts couldn't be used as already discussed. While still not perfect dealing with average moisture of say 10-18% and weight as the metric would be far more equitable for all parties than a volume of unknown quality or moisture. A pound of wood at 12% moisture is a pound of wood at 12% moisture but a cord of pine at 12% is of far less value than a cord of osage orange at 12% moisture in BTUs. Using weight would get rid of the question of how tight or loose the wood was stacked.
ropensaddle
Feel Lucky
I think it ought to be sold by the hour that way the poor sob trying to make a living would be compensated for some of the ridiculous places they want it stacked
And noone is saying any different. The problem is that "cord" is a volumn that is clearly defined and, you are right, does not address species, weight, quality. But then NO commodity that is measured by volume does that. Feel free to give an example.
Even better. Give us a sample definition of "cord" that will suit your ridiculous demands.
Cord specifies "how much" That is all. The quality, moisture, weight, species has to be specified in addition to that.
You want to sell by weight. Fine. Then drop "cord" out of it as it would have nothing to do with it.
Bottom line: You can plead one of two things if you keep insisting cord include all those things
1. Trolling.
2. Stupid.
Harry K
KiwiBro
Mill 'em, nails be damned.
It's a reference point at best. A line in the sand. You can regulate the living daylights out of it, but any fool who thinks they can hold back the tide of immoral, deceitful cowboys via legislative means is a self-serving pencil-neck at worst or seriously disconnected from reality at best.
My $0.02 worth.
My $0.02 worth.
Harry, my point all along has been that the cord in my opinion is little better than face cords or bush cords or any other measurement that deals in volume. I don't want the cord to include anything, I think if you want an equitable way of selling or buying wood weight is the way to go. I have previously said and will repeat its not perfect but I see it as the best way.
Yup, a maze of twisty little passages buying firewood.
So, I'd like a cord of well seasoned, old growth.
Or should I ask for a ton of pertified wood ?
Bonus if the spotted owl is included.
So, I'd like a cord of well seasoned, old growth.
Or should I ask for a ton of pertified wood ?
Bonus if the spotted owl is included.
ropensaddle
Feel Lucky
Am I right?
I went to the site and then checked on natural gas pricesU.S. Natural Gas Prices and the btu's for a thousand cubic feet of natural gas Online Conversion - Cubic feet gas ---BTU'sand i came up with this.
1000 cu. ft of natural gas costs 95.00$
that gives you 1,020,000 btu (call it 1,000,000)
red oak gives you 21,000,000 btu/cord
and costs you 250$(roughly based on my brothers landscaping company)stacked and delivered
this seems yo me that it would take 25 thousand cubic feet of gas to make the same btu's as a cord of red oak at 95.00$ per thousand cubic feet that is 2375.00$ for the same btu's from natural gas as a cord of wood
this seems like i could heat my house for one tenth the price of natural gas with wood and the price of saws and gas and other equipment is not a factor. Will somebody check my facts because this seems like I am misplacing a decimal or something?
Thanks,
Nick.
I went to the site and then checked on natural gas pricesU.S. Natural Gas Prices and the btu's for a thousand cubic feet of natural gas Online Conversion - Cubic feet gas ---BTU'sand i came up with this.
1000 cu. ft of natural gas costs 95.00$
that gives you 1,020,000 btu (call it 1,000,000)
red oak gives you 21,000,000 btu/cord
and costs you 250$(roughly based on my brothers landscaping company)stacked and delivered
this seems yo me that it would take 25 thousand cubic feet of gas to make the same btu's as a cord of red oak at 95.00$ per thousand cubic feet that is 2375.00$ for the same btu's from natural gas as a cord of wood
this seems like i could heat my house for one tenth the price of natural gas with wood and the price of saws and gas and other equipment is not a factor. Will somebody check my facts because this seems like I am misplacing a decimal or something?
Thanks,
Nick.
tilenick, your not mistaken!! wood is cheap at twice the normal cost... besides the heat with fossil fuels just is not the same as the warmth you get from the btu,s of firewood!! stay warm with natures best product!!
Dalmatian90
Addicted to ArboristSite
Efficiency factor is missing, and your price of gas is off.
Gas is usually ranked from 85% to 97% efficient -- how much you pay for converted to usable heat in your home.
Wood is usually ranked from 60% to 75% efficient.
Worse case would be going from a modern high efficiency (97%) forced hot air natural gas system to a mediocre EPA stove (65%).
25 thousand c.f. x 1M BTUs x .97 == 24.25M BTUs
24.25M BTUs / (21M BTUs/cord x .65) == 1.7 Cords
$250 for a cord of red oak, seasoned sounds reasonable.
$95/mcf (1000 c.f. ... like timber, they use "m" for thousand...) is WAY too high though. Natural Gas Prices - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy
$20/mcf is probably a more realistic price. (And usually retail natural gas is sold in "therms" which are the volume that contains 100,000 BTUs, since natural gas varies a bit...but 1mcf is always close to 10 therms)
So for equivelant heat delivered:
25mcf x $20/mcf == $500
1.7 cords x $250/cord == $425
Editing to add oil comparison:
No. 2 Home Heating Oil: 140,000 BTUs/gallon; 85% efficient (if you have a good furnace!)
24.25M BTUs / 140,000 BTUs/gallon == 173 Gallons
173 Gallons / .85 == 203 Gallons by the time you account for inefficiency.
203 gallons * $3.50/gallon == $710
=========
In my own case, I already own the pickup and land whether I burned wood or not.
I figure my current cost for heating with wood is $35/cord -- that's accounting for my stove, the chainsaws I used, Fiskars ax, Logrite Peavy (all spread out over 10 years), and fuel/oil and chain costs. In reality it's a bit higher from stuff I've bought over the years no longer actively used.
When I put in a more efficient stove next year, I'll cut my wood consumption down plus have to add in the cost of the stove over say a 15 year estimated life...it'll probably raise my cost per cord to $50-60...but I'll cut the number of cords in half. Of course if I can turn around and sell those two "saved" cords each year that would offset my expenses...
Gas is usually ranked from 85% to 97% efficient -- how much you pay for converted to usable heat in your home.
Wood is usually ranked from 60% to 75% efficient.
Worse case would be going from a modern high efficiency (97%) forced hot air natural gas system to a mediocre EPA stove (65%).
25 thousand c.f. x 1M BTUs x .97 == 24.25M BTUs
24.25M BTUs / (21M BTUs/cord x .65) == 1.7 Cords
$250 for a cord of red oak, seasoned sounds reasonable.
$95/mcf (1000 c.f. ... like timber, they use "m" for thousand...) is WAY too high though. Natural Gas Prices - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy
$20/mcf is probably a more realistic price. (And usually retail natural gas is sold in "therms" which are the volume that contains 100,000 BTUs, since natural gas varies a bit...but 1mcf is always close to 10 therms)
So for equivelant heat delivered:
25mcf x $20/mcf == $500
1.7 cords x $250/cord == $425
Editing to add oil comparison:
No. 2 Home Heating Oil: 140,000 BTUs/gallon; 85% efficient (if you have a good furnace!)
24.25M BTUs / 140,000 BTUs/gallon == 173 Gallons
173 Gallons / .85 == 203 Gallons by the time you account for inefficiency.
203 gallons * $3.50/gallon == $710
=========
In my own case, I already own the pickup and land whether I burned wood or not.
I figure my current cost for heating with wood is $35/cord -- that's accounting for my stove, the chainsaws I used, Fiskars ax, Logrite Peavy (all spread out over 10 years), and fuel/oil and chain costs. In reality it's a bit higher from stuff I've bought over the years no longer actively used.
When I put in a more efficient stove next year, I'll cut my wood consumption down plus have to add in the cost of the stove over say a 15 year estimated life...it'll probably raise my cost per cord to $50-60...but I'll cut the number of cords in half. Of course if I can turn around and sell those two "saved" cords each year that would offset my expenses...
Last edited:
So for equivelant heat delivered: 25mcf x $20/mcf == $500 1.7 cords x $250/cord == $425[/QUOTE said:
And you again ignore the inescapable FACT that cord accurately describes a volumn. Not one of those others do that.
YOu want to sell by weight, leave cord out of it. But you seem to have abandoned your demand that the weight also has to include the specifications of "how dry".
In a word, you are trying to come up with a definition of a commodity weight or volume that also includes specifications that is handled by the product label, e.g., 3 lbs of columbian dark ground coffee, 1lb of t-bone steak, 1 cord of seasoned oak firewood. 1 ton of hard rock maple, cut 16 1/2" with moisture content of 23.957% delivered to your driveway, dumped at 5:32am. The last example is about what you are asking for.
Your original troll for 'cord' was on the lines of that last example but you now seem to have abandoned the 'cord needs more specifications' asinine argument. You then got your rear handed you on the moisture content problem so apparently you now have dropped that.
Harry K
Harry, do you suffer from reading comprehension problems? You attacked people for being a crook in the other threads because they used terms you don't like. I tried to point out to you that the term you like the "cord" has as many flaws as the ones you don't. The use of weight as a measurement would have to include an accepted moisture content or you have just exactly what we have now a hodge podge of regional terms and quasi standards.A ton of wood at a given moisture content then becomes standardized every where no matter what length its cut or how its stacked or what species it is. I have not tried to combine the cord with weight, length of cut or time of day your the one who is hung up on the cord. Weight is used to measure most commodities why not wood, the pound and the ton are universal throughout the country. There are 3 places close to me with truck scales I use them a few times a year buying corn and such. I find it hard to believe that there aren't scales reasonably close to people. I do live in podunk which is right next door to bf egypt. We have been discussing the pros and cons here I haven't seen anyone hand anybody their hind quarters. I will refer you to post 23 where Coldfront stated a mill in his area buys wood by the ton at 14% or less moisture. That mill obviously has an acceptable way to measure moisture in log form so it can be done.
Similar threads
