neat way to measure wood

[J.W Younger]

most of you probably know this but for those that don't..length x height x width in inches devided by 220=cords or fractions of cords let the flaming begin

 

[ray benson]

Don't think it works.
Try 8' x 4' x 4'= 1 cord
Or 24' x 4' x 16"= 1 cord

 

[TreePointer]

220, 221, whatever it takes. :greenchainsaw:



But seriously, I think you are off by a factor of 1000 when calculating cubic inches. That is, divide by 220000 cu.in., instead of 220 cu.in.

 

[J.W Younger]

220, 221, whatever it takes. :greenchainsaw:



But seriously, I think you are off by a factor of 1000 when calculating cubic inches. That is, divide by 220000 cu.in., instead of 220 cu.in.

you are correct, the more zeros the more accurate, just lazy here

 

[November Wolf]

220, 221, whatever it takes. :greenchainsaw:



But seriously, I think you are off by a factor of 1000 when calculating cubic inches. That is, divide by 220000 cu.in., instead of 220 cu.in.

I think you may be right. I tried it and it works for me. Great post.

 

[Husky137]

you are correct, the more zeros the more accurate, just lazy here

The more zeros don't have anything to do with accuracy but more to do with right answer and wrong answer.

 

[J.W Younger]

The more zeros don't have anything to do with accuracy but more to do with right answer and wrong answer.

you say tomatoes

 

[STLfirewood]

220, 221, whatever it takes. :greenchainsaw:



.

Just so you know it didn't go unnoticed. That was a great reference to the movie Mr. Mom.

Scott

 

[Husky137]

you say tomatoes

1 cord, 1000 cords, no real difference.

 

[J.W Younger]

1 cord, 1000 cords, no real difference.

if i drop all the zeros and devide by 22 can i move the dot 4 digits left and come up with the same answer, really dumb here so bear with me.

 

[turnkey4099]

Okaaaayyyy...what am _I_ doing wrong>

8'x4'x16" divided by 220 I get 2.3...

96" x 48" x 16" divided 220 I get 335127... (not sure where the decimal winds up)

Harry K

 

[KsWoodsMan]

Harry, It is supposed to all be in inches not a mixture of feet and inches 96" x 48" x 16" = 73728 cubic inches. Divide that by 220,000 and you get 0.3351273 cords . ??? ??? That cant be right ! It shopuld have been 0.3333_ cords. Oh well I guess I give'em a stick or 2 anyway.

To be more accurate 1728 (cubic inches in a cubic foot) x 128 (cubic feet in a cord) is 221,184 cubic inches in a cord. but 220 is easier to figure in your head so 220 works for me.

Thanks

 

[RuralCruiser007]

We can measure it all we want, but i feel the basics that we all measure our wood is the basic "FREE HEAT". Yes we spend money on fuel, oil, chainsaws and labor.

It is the basics, but it is something we enjoy.

We have the enjoyment to take the time and talk, within the forums, to each other and reading in general. The knowledge we gain from this mass of information is unmeasurable.

I am sorry, but sometimes when I am drunk, I am a philosopher(drunk). With the wisdom of life (and ale) I have a sometimes been known to be an ass and also a knowledge of wisdom.


Glenn
Happy New Year

 

[turnkey4099]

Harry, It is supposed to all be in inches not a mixture of feet and inches 96" x 48" x 16" = 73728 cubic inches. Divide that by 220,000 and you get 0.3351273 cords . ??? ??? That cant be right ! It shopuld have been 0.3333_ cords. Oh well I guess I give'em a stick or 2 anyway.

To be more accurate 1728 (cubic inches in a cubic foot) x 128 (cubic feet in a cord) is 221,184 cubic inches in a cord. but 220 is easier to figure in your head so 220 works for me.

Thanks

Aha. RTFM. I misread the OP. I thought it was supposed to come to a full cord, not a 1/3 cord.

Hate to admit how many times I reran it before I asked

Harry K