Flame me now I burn wood green and other wise

[Encore]

I'm not near as experienced as some of you guys, but I'm in the camp that ascribes to burning quite dry wood. I have most of next years wood split, stacked and drying.

I agree, using not so dry wood is an easier way to extend burn times and I had done so when I first started burning wood. However I found I had to certainly keep a close eye on the chimney and was cleaning it about once a month or so.

As I stocked up on more wood and began burning consistently more dry wood, I found that it was easier to get the fire going, easier to manage the stove and we got a ton more heat out of the wood, so I could clamp down the damper a lot more than with the greenish wood.

Burning dry wood is just lower maintance in my opinion. I get more heat with less wood, less time cleaning out the chimney, etc. I really don't mind starting a fire from scratch.

With respect to my senior and more experienced burners out there - burning green wood just makes no sense to me. You're taking an old and much lower efficiency stove (compared to todays stoves) and making it even less efficient by burning green wood. I don't think someone could ever convince me burning green wood is better than dry wood

However if it works for you and heats your home, by all means proceed. That's what we are all after in the end, a warm house.

 

[CTYank]

Mizzou & Mga

I am being sarcastic????? The drier the wood is not always better. It all has to do the here and now, How much moisture do you need to to put out the needed BTU's.

If the wood is to dry it burns too fast.. If the wood has too much moisture content it burns to slow and can cause trouble.

All I am trying to say drier is not always better.

I have a huge brand new home made stove in my garage. It will probably see very little dry wood it.

Green wood burns very , very hot if you can burn it fast enough.

Dunno about sarcastic. But you're sure missing a lot of boats. Being an apologist for incompetence, IMHO.

No such thing as too dry. That's what draft controls are for. And you can easily stack differently in firebox. Most definitely, drier is better. Get a moisture-meter and practice. EPA compliant stoves are a major PLUS here, since they burn what would have been smoke. Learning is fun.

When you're talking "greener" you mean "wetter", like with water. Never found water to be a good fuel. Takes the wood much longer to get up to temp, and lots of heat to vaporize that water. If you "burn it fast", wanna guess where much more of the heat content goes? Up the pipe. Not on my watch.

 

[AIM]

I'd like to extend a big thanks to the OP of this thread. This is just what we needed. You trying to start a fight over burning green wood. (and yes in my opinion your trying to start a fight)

We get the "EPA approved, dry wood only" speech shoved up our ass so often I've gotten hemorrhoids. You have just spurred that argument along.

Yes I burn a fair amount of green wood. Not because I think it is better. It's because i simply don't have the time to get ahead. I have MANY other priorities in life and juggling them all is tough. I just can't get a year ahead. NOBODY with any understanding, "WANTS" to burn green. Sometimes we just have no choice. Burn green or buy propane. I'll pass up a fresh blow down oak for a standing dead elm or even a seasoned silver maple. I'll burn seasoned wood all I can but if green is what I have so green is what I burn. The last thing we need is people bragging about doing it on purpose.

Green wood just sucks. The old timers that might swear by it just didn't have the science to understand the BTU loss etc. They just thought (oh,,, it lasted longer, it must be better) Hell, an old tractor tire will burn all night. Doesn't mean it's better...

I'm gonna piss off both sides of the fence here but what the hell.

If you think burning green is better,,, fine... Your losing half your heat but if it makes you feel better then burn away.. Just do us all a favor and keep it to yourself.
It's pretty obvious that the majority disagrees... (again.. I burn a fair amount of green but I don't brag about it.)


To the other side..
Burning green is not the end for wood heat... Whiners will be the end...
EPA fanatics and 30 year smokers want to blame breathing problems on smoke from a chimney 1/2 mile away for their problems. I have read posts about smoke from OWB's being so dense that driving down the road was hazardous. Gimmie a break. My OWB is the most inefficient unit I can think of and I can say with total honesty that I have never even come close to seeing this. And I've burned a lot of crappy stuff.. Exaggerations don't help any of us...

Yes I think I'm in a pissy mood tonight!

 

[logbutcher]

Flame Redux

Eric baby, you do what the hell you want. Most of the pissers at you are wood burn cherries anyhow. All of a sudden they've become born again wood nazis, with google as their mantra. Instant experts. Sooooooooooooo.......

With apologies to my black friends ( not the "...some of my best friends are.... " ), an older very un-PC motto:
" You're free, white and American."

P.S. Yes, green wood is inefficient. Righteous ones behold. What a bunch of ditzy prigs. BUTT--you dance with one who brung ya.

 

[Chris-PA]

I have read posts about smoke from OWB's being so dense that driving down the road was hazardous. Gimmie a break. My OWB is the most inefficient unit I can think of and I can say with total honesty that I have never even come close to seeing this. And I've burned a lot of crappy stuff.. Exaggerations don't help any of us

I said that, and I experienced it, not an exaggeration in even the littlest detail. At a significant intersection at a traffic light at rush hour, lot's of fun for everyone.

Other than that, I agree with the rest of your post. I'm way behind this year and I'm sure I'll hear plenty of hissing and spitting in the stove this winter. And it will piss me off every time, but I will burn it anyway because my only backup is a couple of electric space heaters. Life is just a bunch of compromises.

 

[Whitespider]

I’ll flame ya’… ‘cause what you claim about green/wet wood just ain’t possible. Simply, wet wood can not burn; the moisture must be removed (by heat in a stove) from the wood before it will burn. Take a paper cup, fill it half full of water and set it in a fire… only the top half of the cup will burn immediately, and only as the water boils/evaporates away will the rest of the cup burn. I don’t care if the moisture content is 100-percent, 50-percent, or 5-percent… the moisture must be removed before the wood will burn. Moisture, or water, is a massive heat-sink, and as it converts to steam it will carry away a huge portion of the potential heat. There ain’t any way to get around the physics of it… plain-and-simple.

This means that when I fill my firebox with seasoned (20% moisture) wood and you fill yours with green (60% moisture) wood, both will have to become zero-percent moisture before it will burn. WE ARE BOTH BURNING ZERO-PERCENT MOISTURE WOOD! You can’t get more coals, more heat, or a longer burn with wet wood. Simply, it just takes longer before your wood will start to burn, at a considerable loss of heat value… meaning my coals have burned themselves out before yours have started to form, but the coaling was equal and I harnessed more heat from the wood. Yes, my firebox will need reloading sooner… but you’re not getting a longer, hotter burn… it just ain’t possible according to well known laws of physics.

And about that “popcorn-fart” dry wood burning too fast… well, unless you live in Death Valley it’s pretty much impossible your wood will contain less that 15% moisture. Even kiln-dried wood will return to around 10% in a couple days, and around 15% in a week. It burns fast because you let it get too old; the wood fibers have begun to rot from old age. Eventually every organic substance will break-down, no matter how well stored, and as it deteriorates it releases the stored carbon (where the energy is). It has nothing to do with being too dry… you just have less wood mass.

 

[Eric Modell]

I guess I just wanted to stir the pot.

But we burn what we have. In our set up green burns great. The wood we are burning this year is oak tops logged 18 months ago freshly cut and split, still green.

Next year and the year after these tops will be rotten and will not burn as well as they do this year. My neighbor has 1000s of cords rotting away.

I plan on getting a new efficient stove when I get the money some day and I hope it will burn half as good as or 30 year old earth stove.

Dry wood is good but some of us old-timers have only burnt green. We used to drive gas guzzling cars too. Theses vehicles had big motors and drank the gas.

 

[greendohn]

Burn it green if ya' have to, if it's all ya' got. It all burns better than snow balls, KEEP AN EYE ON YOUR FLUE-CHIMNEY!! There's been times I had to burn it un-seasoned in the ol' "Iron Pig'(Ember Hearth insert) and man, i couldn't sleep at nite,,worried 'bout burning this ol' dump to the ground. I would burn a PAPER FIRE about once a week and leave the stove WIDE OPEN THROTTLE, sucking the flames up the pipe,,,,"CLEANING THE FLU"!?!? I had the idea that was workin' and was SAFE...'till a month or so into burning 24/7 I heard the sound of bacon frying and the sounds of a flu fire late one nite..my "paper fire cleaning" failed me..I tossed one-o-them FIRE STOP STICKS into the beast(IT WORKED!!) and I saved this old place from burning to the ground..having nothing to burn but green wood,,I took to checking and cleaning my flu,,,seems like weekly for the rest of the winter, I dont remember, been better than 10 yrs ago,,,MORAL OF MY RAMBLIN",,,,keep an on yer flu,OFTEN!!, keep ya' one-o-them FIRE STOP STICKS(probly 20 dollars by now), an' a couple fire extinguishers and plenty of smoke detectors..try to get ahead on yer wood,,I know it can be tough, and maybe be ready for next winter..

 

[lone wolf]

IHDIESEL

This is my point !!!!!

Maybe your stove does not breath enough.

All the old timers that tough me to burn wood, burned green.

Just food for thought.

I know EPA and the government has been involved for a long time.

If your stove burns fast enough it is hard to control dry wood. And heaven help us if you have an out of control stove.

Green wood sure burns hot as hell I think these guys aint letting it breath!Open up the door a 1/4 of they way put some green cherry in there let it go a while and tell me it aint hot ok?They flu pipes will turn cherry red and you will almost be able to see through them!

 

[Whitespider]

I guess I just wanted to stir the pot.

I knew that... that's why I FLAMED ya'.

 

[Dalmatian90]

I am of the belief it's not the BTUs wasted in boiling off the water in green firewood that's the major issue heating wise, it's that in stoves which can burn either well, it burns slower which lowers the BTUs/hour.

On a cold night when you have your dampers open and just can't produce enough BTUs/hour is when it manifests itself the most.

It also limits you from using the most efficient stoves because the extra moisture would interfere with the cat / secondary burn systems designed to burn (and thus recover heat from) the volatile components in smoke.

Looking at the charts, a cord of White Oak has a weight difference of around 2200 pounds between green and seasoned, and around 27 million BTUs.

By definition it takes 1 BTU to raise the temperature of 1 pound of water 1ºF, and 970 BTUs to take water at 212º and turn it into steam at 212º.

So let's assume you bring the wood into the house at 60º (you stock up in the early fall before it gets cold ). (((212º - 60º) * 1 BTU/pound/º) + 970 BTU/pound) * 2200 pounds = 2,468,400 BTUs. Round it off and call it 2.5 million BTUs

2.5 million / 27 million = 9.25%

Whether 10% is a huge, OMG, big time loss of heat or just a giant "Meh" I have to leave up to folks.

Compared to stove types it by itself isn't the largest factor.

Let's guesstimate the old fashion, pre-1970 style stoves are around 30% efficient.

You step up to the 1973-1989 generation of air tight Fisher stoves, clones, and copies you get 50% efficient. A major problem burning green wood in these is their design reduces how much air goes up the chimney, giving the steam in green wood more time to condense and build up more creosote in the chimney.

Get into an EPA stove around 65% efficiency. Green wood is no longer a question, because the extra moisture in the smoke interferes with the cat or secondary burn (both of which are trying to burn off the volatile components in smoke that could condense to form creosote), so you can't use green wood.

You're getting twice as much heat out of cord of wood over the older designs that burn green wood well. But only about 1/3rd of that improvement can be accounted by the water in the wood -- if you have a Boxwood stove burning green wood at 30% efficiency and an EPA stove burning seasoned wood at 65% efficiency, that's a 35 percentage point improvement and basic math tells us only 10 percentage points is due to water being boiled off, so the other 25 percentage points must be in the design of the stove.

Can you gain that extra 25 without seasoned wood? No. But it's not the BTUs lost to heating the water to drive it out; it's the design of the stove, a design that requires seasoned wood, that's accounting for most of the performance improvement.

 

[IHDiesel73L]

Whitespider, Greendohn, Lone Wolf, and Dalmatian all get it and make good points..............that will be completely ignored by the guys who think that they're smarter than the rest of us because they burn green wood Really though I guess there is a certain logic to guys who burn green wood. You see a lot of posts on this board with guys who are almost bragging about how much wood they burn in a season-crazy numbers like 10-15 cords per winter! Personally I like to brag about how much I can find in a year and how little I can burn. I have a full time job an hour away from home and an infant daughter-just finding time to scrounge, process, and store FIVE cords a year is hard enough! This year I might actually get two years ahead due to the storm. Depending on where I'm at in February I might even buy a cord or two already split just to make sure I'm ahead for next year. If I had to find 10 cords a year just to heat my house I think I'd give up and just pay the oil man. Since we plan to stay in our house long term I'm hoping to convert to hydronic heat and put in a gasifier which would probably allow me to provide heat through the winter and DHW year round on four to five cords. Ever hear the phrase "work smarter-not harder?"

 

[Whitespider]

Dalmatian90,
I don’t agree with your efficiency rates for older stoves run properly, but…
Putting that aside, your math is sound but your total reasoning isn’t. Water does not stop absorbing heat at 212[sup]0[/sup], and it only becomes steam if it is free to expand. Even steam will continue to act as a heat-sink. You have forgotten that the water is trapped in the wood where it can’t expand, and may reach temperatures far in excess of 212[sup]0[/sup] (more BTU’s) before it finds its way out and expands. Furthermore, steam will continue to “sink” heat until it finds its way out of the firebox. What this means is that water will, or at least has the potential to, carry away much more heat than your 10% figure. The “wetter” the wood, the “hotter” the water will get before it all finds its way out of the wood because it needs to wait its turn to escape… The correlation between moisture content and heat loss is not linear… it would require logarithm equations to find the heat-loss percentage for each changing value, such as wood density, wood size, moisture content, firebox size, etc., etc., etc.

 

[J.W Younger]

You see a lot of people with owb's burning unseasoned wood. I have but it takes less if its seasoned and dry. The stack i'm burning from now is 2 1/5-3 years old and some of its begining to rot from the bug dust holding moisture. Depending on the species about 2-3 years is the practical limit for storage unless i can come up with a better method. For me the elm and white oak store the best since i have so little access to black locust. I think hedge wood be the ticket but its not an option for me.

 

[Chris-PA]

Dalmatian90 - I like your analysis, but I also think there are additional factors at work. The presence of the water prevents the temperatures from rising as high until the water is boiled off. This is actually the effect the green wood burners are looking for, as it acts as a time delay letting the stove go longer before needing to be reloaded, which helps at night. But those lower temperatures are going to greatly reduce efficiency until the water is dried out and then it probably equalizes somewhat.

There is a certain amount of solar energy stored in the logs, mostly in the molecular bonds with carbon atoms. When you burn it you release that stored energy, and it's going to dissipate as heat at the background temperature of the air where you live (outside). The game is to try to slow it down and use it to warm us up on the way. The more of the carbon atoms that stay bonded the less energy is released. The more energy that travels other paths and doesn't warm your room (up the flue), the less it warms you.

So the first issue is to prevent the carbon from leaving without breaking the bonds and releasing the energy, and to prevent the energy from just leaving directly.

The second issue is to transfer that energy into your room. The paths the heat takes out of your stove are mostly radiative and convection, (conduction if it's a water boiler). The radiative output power has term that is temperature to the 4th power, making the temperature of the stove a very important factor. Convection transfer efficiency is proportional to the temperature difference, so it's important there too. So while a smoldering stove is producing heat, a lot less of the heat energy is being transferred into the room. It will be very non-linear - once the water is cooked out then the temperature will come up and the heat transfer will increase.

 

[Eric Modell]

IHDIEsel

I feel for you, I drive to work also and have a very busy life and find it hard to have the time I need for wood.

I only burn 3 or 4 cords!!!!!

 

[Dalmatian90]

Water does not stop absorbing heat at 2120, and it only becomes steam if it is free to expand. Even steam will continue to act as a heat-sink. You have forgotten that the water is trapped in the wood where it can’t expand, and may reach temperatures far in excess of 2120 (more BTU’s)

It's really irrelevant, I could've even ignored the 152 BTUs taken going to from 60º to 212º. Steam is no more and likely less efficient in absorbing BTUs then liquid water except when it's transition from liquid to gas.

It's the 970 BTUs that is used in the transformation from a liquid to gas that is dominates the equation.

Even if your wood is capable of acting like a pressure cooker and holding 65psi in order to keep water liquid until 312º, all you gain is 32 more BTUs/pound (http://www.copper.org/applications/plumbing/techcorner/pdf/saturated_steam_tables.pdf -- note the table starts at 32º not the 60º I presumed).

The water in green wood is going to need around 10% of the BTUs in a cord to burn off. Less in some species, more in others like willow & cottonwood that are notoriously waterlogged. But most will work out to around 10%

The weight difference between Green & Seasoned times 1,000 should give a pretty close answer to the amount of BTUs it'll take to boil off the water in a green cord. Compare that to the BTUs listed per cord to figure out the percentage you're losing. (time 1,200 will give an even closer answer, but I can't do that math off the top of my head )

I like your analysis, but I also think there are additional factors at work. The presence of the water prevents the temperatures from rising as high until the water is boiled off.

Yep. That's what's reducing the BTUs/hour -- the water slows and cools the fire.

 

[Eric Modell]

Dalmation() said That's what's reducing the BTUs/hour -- the water slows and cools the fire.[/QUOTE]

You seem to know what you are talking about I will try and rep you.

So if my wood is by average is 50% dry I am loosing 5% ultimate capacity but can keep my fire under control.

 

[psuiewalsh]

When in doubt split it smaller.

 

[mtfallsmikey]

I've burned green wood too, only in an emergency tho. I'm starting on the red oak which I felled/split last Jan./ Feb., stored under roof, seems to burn just fine.