Steve B wrote:
I saw once where they took lengths of rounds, full cuts of tree trunk, and
stacked them 8' x 8' x 4' to equal 128 cubic feet. They then split the
wood, and had a lot more than a cord.

I saw an ad that a man was selling cords of wood for $140, and rounds for
$100, but not specifying the quantity on the rounds. If it is a cord of
rounds, I can split it with my splitter, and I would estimate that I could
get nearly two cords out of that. For $100 vs. $140, that would be a good
deal.

Does anyone know what the conversion factor would be? Cord for cord, at $40
cheaper, the rounds are a better deal.

Steve



ACTUALLY, if the split wood is stacked properly, it will take up less
space than the rounds. Thus, a cord of PROPERLY stacked and split wood
is more wood than the rounds it came from.

steve

On Dec 15, 10:53*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
I saw once where they took lengths of rounds, full cuts of tree trunk, and
stacked them 8' x 8' x 4' to equal 128 cubic feet. *They then split the
wood, and had a lot more than a cord.

That could have something to do with the fact that 8'x8'x4' is
actually 256 cf (2 cords). Either that or you misremember the size...

I saw once where they took lengths of rounds, full cuts of tree trunk, and
stacked them 8' x 8' x 4' to equal 128 cubic feet. They then split the
wood, and had a lot more than a cord.

I saw an ad that a man was selling cords of wood for $140, and rounds for
$100, but not specifying the quantity on the rounds. If it is a cord of
rounds, I can split it with my splitter, and I would estimate that I could
get nearly two cords out of that. For $100 vs. $140, that would be a good
deal.

Does anyone know what the conversion factor would be? Cord for cord, at $40
cheaper, the rounds are a better deal.

Steve

Steve B wrote:
I saw once where they took lengths of rounds, full cuts of tree trunk, and
stacked them 8' x 8' x 4' to equal 128 cubic feet. They then split the
wood, and had a lot more than a cord.

I saw an ad that a man was selling cords of wood for $140, and rounds for
$100, but not specifying the quantity on the rounds. If it is a cord of
rounds, I can split it with my splitter, and I would estimate that I could
get nearly two cords out of that. For $100 vs. $140, that would be a good
deal.

Does anyone know what the conversion factor would be? Cord for cord, at $40
cheaper, the rounds are a better deal.

Steve


What is a cord?
A cord has a specific legal definition in Minnesota:
• One cord is 128 cubic feet in four foot lengths.
• If the wood is sawed, a cord is 110 cubic feet when
ranked, or 160 cubic feet when thrown loosely into a
truck.
• If the wood is sawed and split, a cord is 120 cubic feet
when ranked, and 175 cubic feet when thrown loosely
into a truck. (Minnesota Statutes, Section 239.33)

On Dec 15, 7:05*pm, Steve Barker wrote:
Steve B wrote:
I saw once where they took lengths of rounds, full cuts of tree trunk, and
stacked them 8' x 8' x 4' to equal 128 cubic feet. *They then split the
wood, and had a lot more than a cord.

I saw an ad that a man was selling cords of wood for $140, and rounds for
$100, but not specifying the quantity on the rounds. *If it is a cord of
rounds, I can split it with my splitter, and I would estimate that I could
get nearly two cords out of that. *For $100 vs. $140, that would be a good
deal.

Does anyone know what the conversion factor would be? *Cord for cord, at $40
cheaper, the rounds are a better deal.

Steve

ACTUALLY, if the split wood is stacked properly, it will take up less
space than the rounds. *Thus, a cord of PROPERLY stacked and split wood
is more wood than the rounds it came from.

steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is a common misconception. Any given pile of rounds will gain
about 10 percent volume after splitting. YOu cannot pack a round of
wood into less space than nature already has no matter how you split
it.

Prove it for yourself:

Take long, tapered carrot and slice it into rounds. Paack those
rounds as tightly as you can into a jar or box lid.

Dump them out, split them into halfs, quarters or finer ifyou want and
try to put them back into the same space. They will not go.

This was a big, repeated topic over the years on the 'firewood..."
forum at arboristsite.com. Someone finally did a couple of
experiments usign actual wood and proved it.

An oddity in the discussions is someone would always point out that
you could put split pieces into all the waste space between the rounds
- overlooking that that would only increase the amount of wood in the
load of rounds.
It is also false as ther ewill be only a few "holes" big enough to
take anything but a stick of kindling.
Harry K

On Dec 15, 8:28*pm, Mike Paulsen wrote:
Steve B wrote:
I saw once where they took lengths of rounds, full cuts of tree trunk, and
stacked them 8' x 8' x 4' to equal 128 cubic feet. *They then split the
wood, and had a lot more than a cord.

I saw an ad that a man was selling cords of wood for $140, and rounds for
$100, but not specifying the quantity on the rounds. *If it is a cord of
rounds, I can split it with my splitter, and I would estimate that I could
get nearly two cords out of that. *For $100 vs. $140, that would be a good
deal.

Does anyone know what the conversion factor would be? *Cord for cord, at $40
cheaper, the rounds are a better deal.

Steve

What is a cord?
A cord has a specific legal definition in Minnesota:
• One cord is 128 cubic feet in four foot lengths.
• If the wood is sawed, a cord is 110 cubic feet when
ranked, or 160 cubic feet when thrown loosely into a
truck.
• If the wood is sawed and split, a cord is 120 cubic feet
when ranked, and 175 cubic feet when thrown loosely
into a truck. (Minnesota Statutes, Section 239.33)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

NOw that is an oddity I hadn't heard of. Makes sense though as ti
allows for the 'volume will grow after splitting' fact.

Harry K

On Dec 15, 9:14*pm, Harry K wrote:
On Dec 15, 8:28*pm, Mike Paulsen wrote:





Steve B wrote:
I saw once where they took lengths of rounds, full cuts of tree trunk, and
stacked them 8' x 8' x 4' to equal 128 cubic feet. *They then split the
wood, and had a lot more than a cord.

I saw an ad that a man was selling cords of wood for $140, and rounds for
$100, but not specifying the quantity on the rounds. *If it is a cord of
rounds, I can split it with my splitter, and I would estimate that I could
get nearly two cords out of that. *For $100 vs. $140, that would be a good
deal.

Does anyone know what the conversion factor would be? *Cord for cord, at $40
cheaper, the rounds are a better deal.

Steve

What is a cord?
A cord has a specific legal definition in Minnesota:
• One cord is 128 cubic feet in four foot lengths.
• If the wood is sawed, a cord is 110 cubic feet when
ranked, or 160 cubic feet when thrown loosely into a
truck.
• If the wood is sawed and split, a cord is 120 cubic feet
when ranked, and 175 cubic feet when thrown loosely
into a truck. (Minnesota Statutes, Section 239.33)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

NOw that is an oddity I hadn't heard of. *Makes sense though as ti
allows for the 'volume will grow after splitting' fact.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ooops...misread it. No, it does not make sense, the buyer would be
getting hosed on the split wood. If the uncut cord is 128 ft cubed
(and that is correct), the split wood will take up more, not less,
space.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
On Dec 15, 9:14 pm, Harry K wrote:
On Dec 15, 8:28 pm, Mike Paulsen wrote:





Steve B wrote:
I saw once where they took lengths of rounds, full cuts of tree trunk, and
stacked them 8' x 8' x 4' to equal 128 cubic feet. They then split the
wood, and had a lot more than a cord.
I saw an ad that a man was selling cords of wood for $140, and rounds for
$100, but not specifying the quantity on the rounds. If it is a cord of
rounds, I can split it with my splitter, and I would estimate that I could
get nearly two cords out of that. For $100 vs. $140, that would be a good
deal.
Does anyone know what the conversion factor would be? Cord for cord, at $40
cheaper, the rounds are a better deal.
Steve
What is a cord?
A cord has a specific legal definition in Minnesota:
• One cord is 128 cubic feet in four foot lengths.
• If the wood is sawed, a cord is 110 cubic feet when
ranked, or 160 cubic feet when thrown loosely into a
truck.
• If the wood is sawed and split, a cord is 120 cubic feet
when ranked, and 175 cubic feet when thrown loosely
into a truck. (Minnesota Statutes, Section 239.33)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
NOw that is an oddity I hadn't heard of. Makes sense though as ti
allows for the 'volume will grow after splitting' fact.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ooops...misread it. No, it does not make sense, the buyer would be
getting hosed on the split wood. If the uncut cord is 128 ft cubed
(and that is correct), the split wood will take up more, not less,
space.

Harry K

How much more?

128 cuft
4' lengths: 1 cord
sawed: 1.16 cords
sawed and split: 1.07 cords

One way that could make sense is if you take into account the shrinkage
which occurs during drying. (If they assume sawed and split is also
dry.) I don't know if it overcomes the volume increase incurred by
splitting, but it very well might.

I didn't find any rationale for the law, but the statue also contains this:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=239.33
"If a measurement is made by weight, the term "cord" or any other term
used to describe freshly cut wood shall be based on 79 cubic feet of
solid wood content per cord."

I don't think they consider the bark to be solid wood, since they also say:
'the term "cord" shall mean 128 cubic feet of wood, bark, and air, if
cut in four-foot lengths'

I assume they (or some other agency (like the DNR or Forest Service) has
the empirical data to support the legal definitions.

Harry K wrote:
On Dec 15, 7:05 pm, Steve Barker wrote:
Steve B wrote:
I saw once where they took lengths of rounds, full cuts of tree trunk, and
stacked them 8' x 8' x 4' to equal 128 cubic feet. They then split the
wood, and had a lot more than a cord.
I saw an ad that a man was selling cords of wood for $140, and rounds for
$100, but not specifying the quantity on the rounds. If it is a cord of
rounds, I can split it with my splitter, and I would estimate that I could
get nearly two cords out of that. For $100 vs. $140, that would be a good
deal.
Does anyone know what the conversion factor would be? Cord for cord, at $40
cheaper, the rounds are a better deal.
Steve
ACTUALLY, if the split wood is stacked properly, it will take up less
space than the rounds. Thus, a cord of PROPERLY stacked and split wood
is more wood than the rounds it came from.

steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is a common misconception. Any given pile of rounds will gain
about 10 percent volume after splitting. YOu cannot pack a round of
wood into less space than nature already has no matter how you split
it.

Prove it for yourself:

Take long, tapered carrot and slice it into rounds. Paack those
rounds as tightly as you can into a jar or box lid.

Dump them out, split them into halfs, quarters or finer ifyou want and
try to put them back into the same space. They will not go.

This was a big, repeated topic over the years on the 'firewood..."
forum at arboristsite.com. Someone finally did a couple of
experiments usign actual wood and proved it.

An oddity in the discussions is someone would always point out that
you could put split pieces into all the waste space between the rounds
- overlooking that that would only increase the amount of wood in the
load of rounds.
It is also false as ther ewill be only a few "holes" big enough to
take anything but a stick of kindling.
Harry K


This whole thread is a crock pot of hog **** soup. I suppose, using
YOUR theory, if you run it all through a chipper, it would take a full
sized dump truck to haul a cord. LMAO! I really don't give a **** what
a bunch of pencil pushing college boys think they proved. If you make
smaller pieces, you have less air space. If you split a given amount of
firewood, it will fit in a smaller space. Period.

steve

On Dec 16, 8:29*pm, Steve Barker wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Dec 15, 7:05 pm, Steve Barker wrote:
Steve B wrote:
I saw once where they took lengths of rounds, full cuts of tree trunk, and
stacked them 8' x 8' x 4' to equal 128 cubic feet. *They then split the
wood, and had a lot more than a cord.
I saw an ad that a man was selling cords of wood for $140, and rounds for
$100, but not specifying the quantity on the rounds. *If it is a cord of
rounds, I can split it with my splitter, and I would estimate that I could
get nearly two cords out of that. *For $100 vs. $140, that would be a good
deal.
Does anyone know what the conversion factor would be? *Cord for cord, at $40
cheaper, the rounds are a better deal.
Steve
ACTUALLY, if the split wood is stacked properly, it will take up less
space than the rounds. *Thus, a cord of PROPERLY stacked and split wood
is more wood than the rounds it came from.

steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is a common misconception. *Any given pile of rounds will gain
about 10 percent volume after splitting. *YOu cannot pack a round of
wood into less space than nature already has no matter how you split
it.

Prove it for yourself:

Take long, tapered carrot and slice it into rounds. *Paack those
rounds as tightly as you can into a jar or box lid.

Dump them out, split them into halfs, quarters or finer ifyou want and
try to put them back into the same space. *They will not go.

This was a big, repeated topic over the years on the 'firewood..."
forum at arboristsite.com. *Someone finally did a couple of
experiments usign actual wood and proved it.

An oddity in the discussions is someone would always point out that
you could put split pieces into all the waste space between the rounds
- overlooking that that would only increase the amount of wood in the
load of rounds.
It is also false as ther ewill be only a few "holes" big enough to
take anything but a stick of kindling.
Harry K

This whole thread is a crock pot of hog **** soup. *I suppose, using
YOUR theory, if you run it all through a chipper, it would take a full
sized dump truck to haul a cord. *LMAO! *I really don't give a **** what
a bunch of pencil pushing college boys think they proved. *If you make
smaller pieces, you have less air space. If you split a given amount of
firewood, it will fit in a smaller space. Period.

steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you are scared to try a simple experiment? It was not "a bunch of
pencil...."- it was working stiffs, loggeers to be specific. You
know, people who actually know what they are talking about.

Harry K

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:29:10 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:

Harry K wrote:
On Dec 15, 7:05 pm, Steve Barker wrote:
Steve B wrote:
I saw once where they took lengths of rounds, full cuts of tree trunk, and
stacked them 8' x 8' x 4' to equal 128 cubic feet. They then split the
wood, and had a lot more than a cord.
I saw an ad that a man was selling cords of wood for $140, and rounds for
$100, but not specifying the quantity on the rounds. If it is a cord of
rounds, I can split it with my splitter, and I would estimate that I could
get nearly two cords out of that. For $100 vs. $140, that would be a good
deal.
Does anyone know what the conversion factor would be? Cord for cord, at $40
cheaper, the rounds are a better deal.
Steve
ACTUALLY, if the split wood is stacked properly, it will take up less
space than the rounds. Thus, a cord of PROPERLY stacked and split wood
is more wood than the rounds it came from.

steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is a common misconception. Any given pile of rounds will gain
about 10 percent volume after splitting. YOu cannot pack a round of
wood into less space than nature already has no matter how you split
it.

Prove it for yourself:

Take long, tapered carrot and slice it into rounds. Paack those
rounds as tightly as you can into a jar or box lid.

Dump them out, split them into halfs, quarters or finer ifyou want and
try to put them back into the same space. They will not go.

This was a big, repeated topic over the years on the 'firewood..."
forum at arboristsite.com. Someone finally did a couple of
experiments usign actual wood and proved it.

An oddity in the discussions is someone would always point out that
you could put split pieces into all the waste space between the rounds
- overlooking that that would only increase the amount of wood in the
load of rounds.
It is also false as ther ewill be only a few "holes" big enough to
take anything but a stick of kindling.
Harry K


This whole thread is a crock pot of hog **** soup. I suppose, using
YOUR theory, if you run it all through a chipper, it would take a full
sized dump truck to haul a cord. LMAO! I really don't give a **** what
a bunch of pencil pushing college boys think they proved. If you make
smaller pieces, you have less air space. If you split a given amount of
firewood, it will fit in a smaller space. Period.

steve
How much firewood you split in your life? And stacked?
If the "rounds" are straight they pack in very compactly - and
splitting them, unless split VERY fine, will not take any less space,
and unless extremely carefully stacked, will take roughly 10% more
space. If split down to 3" on the side, it can be stacked in a smaller
space than if split to 5 or 6 inches on the side (pie shaped) and
even, perhaps, smaller space than the straight rounds.

If the rounds are knotty or not straight, or not round, splitting can
reduce the overall volume marginally.

Either way, the difference is relatively minor.
And a stack of split wood can settle as much as it sits and dries.

wrote:

How much firewood you split in your life? And stacked?
If the "rounds" are straight they pack in very compactly - and
splitting them, unless split VERY fine, will not take any less space,
and unless extremely carefully stacked, will take roughly 10% more
space. If split down to 3" on the side, it can be stacked in a smaller
space than if split to 5 or 6 inches on the side (pie shaped) and
even, perhaps, smaller space than the straight rounds.

If the rounds are knotty or not straight, or not round, splitting can
reduce the overall volume marginally.

Either way, the difference is relatively minor.
And a stack of split wood can settle as much as it sits and dries.

to answer your question, about 15 cords a year.

On Dec 17, 8:03*pm, Steve Barker wrote:
wrote:
How much firewood you split in your life? And stacked?
If the "rounds" are straight they pack in very compactly - and
splitting them, unless split VERY fine, will not take any less space,
and unless extremely carefully stacked, will take roughly 10% more
space. If split down to 3" on the side, it can be stacked in a smaller
space than if split to 5 or 6 inches on the side (pie shaped) and
even, perhaps, smaller space than the straight rounds.

If the rounds are knotty or not straight, or not round, splitting can
reduce the overall volume marginally.

Either way, the difference is relatively minor.
And a stack of split wood can settle as much as it sits and dries.

to answer your question, about 15 cords a year.

And still you believe the pile shrinks. Odd. try that experiment
yet?

Harry K