D
Deleted member 83629
Guest
people up north would laugh about how we define wood its called a rick here.
I have an idea on how to get rid of coals faster. What you think?
- Thread starter chadihman
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
So, a face cord ain't anything... yet, it's everything?? It can be anything the person using the term wants it to be??
If he cuts his firewood to 6-inches a face cord equals 1/8 of a cord.
But if he cuts his firewood to 12-inches a face cord equals 1/4 of a cord.
Or if he cuts his firewood to 24-inches a face cord equals 1/2 of a cord.
But if he cuts his firewood to 48-inches a face cord equals 1 full cord.
So, if I have three face cords and I don't think that will be enough to last all winter... all I have to do if I wanna' double my supply is cut all the splits in half?? Yup... that should do it... 6 face cords should be more than enough
And here I thought no air under the fire was plain stupid... "face cord" makes that look like an Eisenstein invention.
Hmmm... a "face cord" must be for people who can't cut two pieces of firewood to a length within 12 inches of each other... meaning they have no fiiggin' clue how much wood they have, or how much they burn. But I guess it must sound really cool to say...
...even though that might be a wheelbarrow full, or a tandem axle dump truck full. I guess we'll just never know... will we??
Still... 2/3 face cord sounds like an awful lot to me.
Heck, I only burned a ¼ dingle-berry this week... last week I didn't even burn a ½ schlump
*
woodchuck357
Addicted to ArboristSite
I remodeled one last summer and had to pay a lot more for the ash door than planed because I had everything else done and put off finishing until cold was almost on us. I saved a little welding by using one piece of steel bent in a wide U for the bottom and sides and welded the back and front on to it.
If you make such a modification, have the box complete with door and draft before doing anything to the stove!
ChoppyChoppy
Tree Freak
1project2many
ArboristSite Guru
I've lived in two New England states and I'd never heard of a face cord until I joined AS.
In the barn I *might* soak a piece of Pine in some used veggie oil then throw it in the stove. Coals can go away pretty fast once there's a hot fire in the stove.
jwilly
ArboristSite Operative
Talking with some really old timers years ago I asked why they used face cords to measure their wood. I was told it wasn't really about how much wood was in the pile but how much work was involved to produce that 32sf pile. Keep in mind that they were cutting without chainsaws and splitting by hand so when you bought a face cord you were paying for the labor not the wood. The term just stuck around. In my area a 16" wood is pretty much the standard length in a face cord. There are people who will order face cords of 10" wood to use in their cook stoves and it is the same price as 16" wood. Face cords are already cut and split, if you order a cord of wood around here it could be 32sf of 48" or 16sf of 96" wood. Confusing to say the least.
MarylandGuy
ArboristSite Operative
I would assume you are raking your coals forward prior to reload. If not, that could be part of your problem. I also found in the past when I burned wood that wasn't quite seasoned, the coaling was a lot worse. Now that I have seen the light and wait three years before burning oak, excessive coaling issues are a thing of the past for me.
That's been brought up before, but no matter how hard and long I think about it, I flat ain't seeing how, or why, that would make coaling worse. I mean... we're not even talkin' about "green" wood, we're talkin' "wood that wasn't quite seasoned". Heck, any moisture would be boiled off long before the coaling stage... way long before. And the issue (at least for me) ain't the coaling itself, it's the sharp reduction in heat output during the coaling stage. The reason the heat output is reduced is because the coals burn so slow, and worse yet, the buried ones hardly burn at all. The reduction in heat output requires adding more wood... which makes more coals... which buries more coals... which get smothered and stop heating. Well... there ain't no moisture in those coals, it's long gone, so how is it possible that wood not "quite seasoned" contributes to that??
The truth is... in my experiences... the opposite is true. The "wetter" the wood is, the fewer coals you get because it burns slower and cooler. Think of pulling off the layers of an onion, one layer at a time... that's sort'a how wet wood burns, one layer at a time. Naaa... the issue ain't wood that ain't "quite seasoned", the issue is way simpler than that... it's a lack of oxygen getting to (or into) the coal bed. It's totally ridiculous to expect air to come in from over the top and make its way "into" the coal bed... it flat ain't gonna'. When that air makes contact with the coals laying on top its gonna' heat up... and hot air rises... away from the coal bed. The reason there's a coaling issue is because the coals don't burn (or they burn way to slow)... they don't burn because they're starving for oxygen... and it don't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Using primary air as an air wash for a glass door is pretty and such, and secondary burn design is great when it's active, but neither one is the answer. They're like putting band-aids on your two-year-old's boo-bo0; it ain't really needed, but he believes it makes things feel better.... he believes in the magic.
*
Gypo Logger
Timber Baron
Another good solution is to just burn pine or spruce as there is nil to no coaling. That's all we got here and we had 72 degrees of frost here last week.
It's ok to pound away. Lol
It's ok to pound away. Lol
I burn alot of pine and your right minimal to no coals lol. I get alot of coaling at night when I burn oak.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
1project2many
ArboristSite Guru
I'm still working with the barn stove. It behaves differently than the house stove for certain. I'm having good luck by watching the mixture of coals and wood and I'm using smaller pieces of wood when I add it. Blocks of pine and spruce along with small splits of fast burning hardwood works much better than large splits. As the wood breaks down to coals in the 3'4" range I mix them up and throw in the new pieces. Last night as temps were dropping from the day's high of 19 down to about 6 by 7pm, I was surprised to notice a temp difference between the open part of the barn and the area where the stove is. When I tried to open the stove door to add wood I needed to move dang quick or put on gloves due to the heat. That thing was definitely hot.
I'm not finding the barn stove impossible to use. I am finding it to be very different from old designs. It seems to require more frequent refueling but wants less fuel per refill. Overall it doesn't seem to use as much fuel as the old stoves to make heat but it took a while to get it really, really hot. It probably would be a pain to use if it were in the house.
What's funny is that the people who like their EPA stoves are saying you must be doing something wrong despite the number of times you've said otherwise, and you seem to be convinced people having good luck are just brainwashed. After using two different stoves with two very different personalities, it's apparent that all EPA stoves do not work the same. I'm wondering if you've just got a bum stove.
Cpeder
ArboristSite Member
Get a nest thermostat u can also hook a wifi camera into the nest system I'm told. I may just be doing this so I can control my damper by changing thermostat temps.
I don't believe "brainwashed" is the appropriate descriptive 1project2many... but maybe it is??
Let's look at what you just posted...
Obviously you ain't brainwashed, you ain't preaching the oft heard mantra... "twice the heat, longer burn times, half the wood"
Assuming it does use a little less wood... does that, as the "brainwashed" claim, automatically make it better?? Is it worth the trade-off??
Mine likes splits somewhere 'round ¼-½ the size I've made for years. Heck man, think about it, that's a lot of extra work... like 2-4 times more splitting, stacking, handling in general. The "brainwashed" claim longer burn times... but like you, I find myself reloading more often, a lot more often (this is likely because there's a big difference between "burn" time and "heating" time). And don't discount trips to the box to fiddle with it... raking coals, making adjustments, shoveling out ashes (which requires letting the stove burn out with most of 'em).
Using a little less wood is nice and all... but (for me) it ain't worth the trade-off, not even close. It certainly ain't "better", not even close. Maybe "brainwashed" is the correct descriptive... brainwashed into believing less wood and burning smoke is automatically better no matter what the cost.
Like my signature says... burning it should be the easy part.
*
Let's look at what you just posted...
I don't find mine to be "impossible" to use either (out in the shop)... but, just as you say, it is a pain. Also, like you, I have to reload more often with smaller stuff to keep coaling from getting out'a hand. I can't say positively it uses less wood (less than what??)... and even your statement that it "doesn't seem to" ain't all that positive either. And yes... mine also seems to take a long time to get hot, so it really pizzes-me-off to haf'ta let it burn out for ash cleaning.
Obviously you ain't brainwashed, you ain't preaching the oft heard mantra... "twice the heat, longer burn times, half the wood"
Assuming it does use a little less wood... does that, as the "brainwashed" claim, automatically make it better?? Is it worth the trade-off??
Mine likes splits somewhere 'round ¼-½ the size I've made for years. Heck man, think about it, that's a lot of extra work... like 2-4 times more splitting, stacking, handling in general. The "brainwashed" claim longer burn times... but like you, I find myself reloading more often, a lot more often (this is likely because there's a big difference between "burn" time and "heating" time). And don't discount trips to the box to fiddle with it... raking coals, making adjustments, shoveling out ashes (which requires letting the stove burn out with most of 'em).
Using a little less wood is nice and all... but (for me) it ain't worth the trade-off, not even close. It certainly ain't "better", not even close. Maybe "brainwashed" is the correct descriptive... brainwashed into believing less wood and burning smoke is automatically better no matter what the cost.
Like my signature says... burning it should be the easy part.
*
greenskeeper
ArboristSite Operative
easiest way to get rid of coals......open draft, crack door open.....drink 2-6 beers and coals are gone ready for wood.
Easiest??
Ummm... wouldn't it be "easier" to just have a box that didn't require a "method" to "get rid" of coals??
Just sayin'.
*
1project2many
ArboristSite Guru
Obviously you ain't brainwashed, you ain't preaching the oft heard mantra... "twice the heat, longer burn times, half the wood"
Well... I could be brainwashed. I haven't dropped off the grid and stopped supporting the pay to work model that funds the gubbermint. But I learned long ago to discern between marketing and reality. Free lunches are always suspect. So is the guy offering them.
No. I have no way to measure exactly. It's a comparison with what I remember from two other shops heated with wood, and with the amount of wood I expected to burn in the barn. I'm knocking my splits down to 1/2 - 1/4 traditional size also. I do it in the shop as I need them so it doesn't feel like a bunch of extra work. But it is. It's just that the PITA factor is spread out over several hours each day I burn.
I don't know any disciples of the Church of EPA Stovology. Folks I know with EPA stoves in the house seem happy with the way they work. My number one complaint with the house stove is that effective heating time is not as long as a traditional airtight stove. But I am keeping the house warm with significantly less wood and I don't seem to have the same issues as in the barn. For me it's an acceptable tradeoff.
I've gotta go refuel the barn stove.
Yeah... that was my number one also... effective heating time.
*
Well W/S I've owned and operated with a grate and without.Kept warm with both.Melting the coals down is easy if you know how and you should know how since it's been stated here many times.I've warped two sets of grates in two different stoves. I know of several more grates that have been destroyed,and had to be replaced.I've NEVER melted the fire bricks or even cracked a brick in a stove with no grate.
Primary air passing over the fire or contacting the fire down low is a long way from stupid.Except to you,of course>
chadihman
Addicted to ArboristSite
Yes but my house is cooling and its hard to get it back. I figured out that in those mounds of coals is lots of ash. The coals cant burn well with all the ash plugging the airways to the coals. I uses my long ash shovel and go to the bottom and push it to the back when I pull it out I shake it a bit and I have a shovel full of mostly ash. I do this till those no more ash then the coals go quickly especially with a couple small pieces on top in the front. I do this every other day and its been working great.
Cpeder
ArboristSite Member
Try loading your stove with alternating direction like a log cabin. Leave gaps around all the pieces for better combustion. I've done this a few times and works great when I load this way. Hard to see in my picture but smaller splits 3 on bottom 3 on top perpendicular and 3 more on top of that. Smaller splits. Still burns just a long for me. 
