"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

Those of us that either have burned woodstoves in the past or still do,
might take exception with that comment George. Unlike the Ford and Chevy
debate, wood does indeed have certain very identifiable properties when it
comes to it use as firewood. Some burns fast with low heat output, some
the
opposite, and this is characteristic of the tree, not an individual
experience. No one is going to get the BTU's and the longevity and the
coals out of a nice chunk of pine that can be gotten out of a piece of
maple. It's just not a subjective thing. While you last statement is
true
for most woods (ash being just one example of the exception), there is
indeed more to the matter than whether the wood is dry. At least if
you're
interested in really getting heat from the stuff..
--

Sadly incorrect. A pound of wood is pretty much a pound of wood, though
conifers generally yield a bit more per pound because of the volatiles.

The difference is in inconvenience. Poplar is not caller gofer (gopher)
wood for nothing, but the heat it produces per pound is based primarily on
carbon, just like hickory. The trick is to burn and capture that heat
efficiently. The stoves are skewed toward convenience, not efficiency.
Your gas furnace doesn't damp the flame, it just burns it in spurts. With
wood you've got a big pilot light to feed.

Folks back in the old country used to sleep on the stove, which was a long
brick/mortar or mud construct designed to burn grass and twigs - rapidly -
which got the greatest thermal benefit out of them. The mass of the stove
captured BTUs pretty well, and kept things bearable, if not toasty, through
the night.