Things we do in the middle of night

[Whitespider]

I couldn’t sleep the other night, woke-up at 2:00 AM.
The combination of pizza, beer and chocolate does it to me every time… you’d think I’d learn, but…

Anyway, I’m floatin’ ‘round on the web and came across a firewood BTU chart I’d never seen before. One listing struck me as all wrong… it listed Sugar (hard) Maple as being much higher in BTU’s than any of the oaks…

• Sugar Maple = 29.7 mBTU per cord.
• White Oak = 26.5 mBTU.
• Red Oak = 21.7 mBTU.

I did a Google search for “Firewood BTU Chart” and it returned several pages of links. I started with the first, making some notes, and worked my way down the list. Many of them were duplicates of another… but I found 9 uniquely different charts for eastern hardwoods before giving up. Two or three were on some sort of state government page, a couple from wood-fired appliance makers, etc.

I do no longer believe any of those charts… they were all over the map on some species. Not a single one of those charts agreed 100% with any other chart. Some notables…

• Sugar(Hard) Maple, listed on 8 charts, low 23.2 mBTU/high 29.7 mBTU, averaged at 25.5 (that average is over 2 mBTU higher than what Red Oak averaged at 23.3 mBTU)
• Black Walnut, 8 charts, low 20.0/high 25.3/average 21.3 mBTU
• White Oak, 8 charts, 24.0/29.1/average 26.0 mBTU
• Paper Birch, 8 charts, 20.0/25.0/21.2 (averaged lower than walnut)
• Black Locust, 8 charts, 23.2/27.9/26.6
• Cottonwood, all 9 charts, 12.2/15.8/13.7
• Willow, 8 charts, 14.0/17.6/15.2 (a high 17.6?? Really??)
• White Ash, 8 charts, 21.6/25.0/23.6
• Slippery (Red) Elm, 19.0/21.6/21.2 (note that Red Elm averaged lower than Black Walnut, one chart even lists walnut as being higher in BTU’s than Red Elm)

It seems those BTU charts use more personal bias and opinion over science. Heck, anyone who’s ever burned Red Elm knows it’s damn close to the equal of Red Oak, maybe even better. Yet every chart except one places it well below; that one exception listed Red Oak at 21.7, and Red Elm at 21.6… but that’s also the chart that listed Sugar Maple at 29.7

 

[GrassGuerilla]

1)What's the sampling size of these charts? Variation from region to region may explain some inconsistencies. Two trees of the same species with differing growing conditions might indeed vary considerably in density. As you know, density is the name of the game.

2) they make pills for that now, see a Dr ;-)

3) the title of this thread made me nervous.

 

[Big_Al]

More beer, less chocolate.

 

[Steve NW WI]

Subscribing just to see where this one goes. I've noticed the same, and tend to just draw my own conclusions, based on local wood.

Heck, I've noticed a big difference in the same species depending on the growing site.

Often the question "Is this wood worth processing/burning?" gets asked here Usually, the correct answer lies more in the need for the wood and the availability of "Better" stuff than it does in the actual value of the wood. I'd happily burn fenceline boxelder if it was all I could get.

I really can't think of any way to generalize something with so many variables accurately. What we need is another gadget - the treeTU™ heat calculator. Take a pic of the tree with the onboard camera, perform a quick sonar density scan, and voila!, there's 932,785 btus in that tree, just waiting for you to release!

(I gotta go get some work done - starting to sound like Zogger™ now )

 

[Jim Timber]

Age and condition of the tree would have a lot to do with it. Older trees tend to have more punky crap heart wood.

 

[fuzz1500]

I think as a general rule of thumb..Oak Ash and Maple up my way ..are the main heat sources for some BTU's . The difference within all of them depends on the age/condition of the tree....drying time , how its stored...heck even how a wood stove or OWB is being used . Too many factors for me to make my own accurate chart . All I know is at my house...the maple and ash get thrown in ...they burn..we stay warm

 

[flashhole]

Been burning here in upstate NY for 8 years. #1 personal preference for firewood is the local Maple, #2 Ash, and a tie for #3 between the Oak and Hickory. Even a dummy like me can tell which is burning hotter and lasting longer in the fireplace. I also like the way the bark falls off the Maple when seasoned. Kind of bucks the density theory because the Oak and Hickory are a bit heavier than the Maple and Ash. Oak and Hickory seem to have longer lasting coals and leave more ashes in the fireplace. Maple and Ash burn with a more robust flame that works better in my fireplace insert. I think it all comes down to growing conditions and soil nutrients.

 

[GVS]

Those charts have varied for as long as they've been published.It's best to pay little attention to them and burn whats avaliable to you and add wood to the wood burner as needed.

 

[philoshop]

The same thing applies to the 'weight of green wood' charts. The guys that do a lot of rigging to drop trees usually have come up with their own notes re what ropes and pulleys are required for the trees in their specific area. I'd guess they don't go by the charts from the internet. Waaay too much at stake there.
I wouldn't load up a truck and/or trailer to go down the road based on those charts either. Green or dry.
It would be interesting to see some background/baselines used to generate some of those charts.
Experience is always the trump card.

 

[7sleeper]

Would like to see a graph with the different margins included.

But to put it simple, I prefer wood from the north side of the hill/mountain/ etc.

7

 

[zogger]

From my recollection, rock maple was the tops I ever came across in new englande...

 

[Dirtboy]

When I first started burning, I was checking charts for BTUs and the what, and over the years noticed the same variance in the different charts. Don't pay attention to them anymore, experience shows you what keeps you the warmest with the wood you have available to you. I prefer ash & maple and the occasional red oak I can get my hands on. I also have some gray birch that I want to cut down and get split in time to burn for next years shoulder season. Members here have said it gets punky if left on the rack too long, and I have gray birch growing all over, so I might as well make use of it. I'll save the good stuff for the frigid months.

 

[Bushmans]

I also love chocolate with my beer! People think I'm nuts and they're absolutely right but a bag of peanut M&Ms and a cold beer? Hell yeah! Oh and I've sen Beech right at the top of those charts as well. Every one I know says Beech don't burn worth a box full of elder! I like my ash, love my sugar maple and drool over the oak!
Oak is ripping hot and I save that for the cold nights.

 

[ash man]

I burn a lot of ash since they are All dying or already dead here in Ohio, but oak, hickory or orange Osage is always a nice find

 

[flyboy553]

All I know for sure is that the piece of wood I throw in the stove gives me way more BTU's than one sitting by the stove! And more ashes too!

Ted

 

[bbxlr8]

So my latest test of this was to go to some of my "good stuff" hickory during this latest cold snap. I have been lucky to be burning oak which has been real good, but on this night I filled with the hickory on a bed coals and d*** near melted the top off the stove before I choked it full closed.

Got me to thinking about some of the recent threads about the combo of the unit vs. the settings vs the wood species & drying. In this case, all factors were the same except the hickory and it was MANY times hotter than any of those charts would have you thinking.

 

[woodchuck357]

Been burning here in upstate NY for 8 years. #1 personal preference for firewood is the local Maple, #2 Ash, and a tie for #3 between the Oak and Hickory. Even a dummy like me can tell which is burning hotter and lasting longer in the fireplace. I also like the way the bark falls off the Maple when seasoned. Kind of bucks the density theory because the Oak and Hickory are a bit heavier than the Maple and Ash. Oak and Hickory seem to have longer lasting coals and leave more ashes in the fireplace. Maple and Ash burn with a more robust flame that works better in my fireplace insert. I think it all comes down to growing conditions and soil nutrients.

I find any wood split small and dried well makes the hottest fire. No type of wood that is split fine will hold a fire long. A lot of woods dry slowly and must be kept for several years to get the most heat out ov them. Others like sycamore dry rapidly, only taking a few months to dry. Throughlly dry non resinous wood will have the same btu per pound regardless of the species.

 

[greendohn]

were, umm,,phone poles listed on any charts ?

 

[woodchuck357]

Some wood takes years to dry when split to 5" to 7" cross section other species split to the same size will dry in months. All non resinous woods will deliver the same BTU s per pound when completely dry.

 

[brenndatomu]

Any wood you have is better than the wood you don't have. To me, Oak is crap BTUs unless dried for at least 3 years!
Mmmm, pizza n beer, had me some last night, pizza n root beer!
And I like me some chocolate for sure, chocoholic! Beer, not so much. Never met a beer I liked, I dunno, just my tastebuds I guess. Prolly gonna get flamed for that comment I suppose.
Never heard of anyone that liked beer n chocolate together though!?