Do you have any problems with modern fire-resistance-treated timbers?

Some of the noggins we've salvaged from new roofings haven't burned as
well as we expected - and yes we did dry them thoroughly.

Mary

wrote in message
...
Do you have any problems with modern fire-resistance-treated timbers?

Some of the noggins we've salvaged from new roofings haven't burned as
well as we expected - and yes we did dry them thoroughly.

Is this for real?

tim

In message , tim....
writes

wrote in message
...
Do you have any problems with modern fire-resistance-treated timbers?

Some of the noggins we've salvaged from new roofings haven't burned as
well as we expected - and yes we did dry them thoroughly.

Is this for real?

one would hope so

--
d @ stejonda

wrote:

Do you have any problems with modern fire-resistance-treated timbers?

Some of the noggins we've salvaged from new roofings haven't burned as
well as we expected - and yes we did dry them thoroughly.

The asbestos I tried to burn last week was a bugger to light.

On Nov 14, 5:37*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
Do you have any problems with modern fire-resistance-treated timbers?

Some of the noggins we've salvaged from new roofings haven't burned as
well as we expected - and yes we did dry them thoroughly.

The asbestos I tried to burn last week was a *bugger to light.

Yep those metal studs too. Hard on the hands bending em to fit in the
stove.
Seems like anything fire proof or fire treated is not supposed to
burn!!!!!
Wonder why?

In message
,
terry writes

Seems like anything fire proof or fire treated is not supposed to
burn!!!!!

Now there is a challenge..................

--
Bill

On Nov 14, 7:41*pm, "
wrote:
Do you have any problems with modern fire-resistance-treated timbers?

Some of the noggins we've salvaged from new roofings haven't burned as
well as we expected - and yes we did dry them thoroughly.

Mary

When I burnt wood I often had hard to burn stuff, I forget what it
was, but used to use it to line the bottom. The primary fuel thus
burnt this stuff up gradually.


NT

In message
,
" writes
Do you have any problems with modern fire-resistance-treated timbers?

Some of the noggins we've salvaged from new roofings haven't burned as
well as we expected - and yes we did dry them thoroughly.

But you're the wicked witch of the north

can't you cast a spell and ignite them with sparks from your broomstick
?


--
geoff

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:04:17 +0000, tim.... wrote:


wrote in message
...
Do you have any problems with modern fire-resistance-treated timbers?

Some of the noggins we've salvaged from new roofings haven't burned as
well as we expected - and yes we did dry them thoroughly.

Is this for real?

I dunno - use your noggins... :P

In message
,
" writes
Do you have any problems with modern fire-resistance-treated timbers?

Some of the noggins we've salvaged from new roofings haven't burned as
well as we expected - and yes we did dry them thoroughly.

Yes:-)

When I last had a proper job... Maintenance staff had first call on
surplus material heading for the dump. An overhead conveyor passage
between two factory buildings had been taken down liberating a pile of
clean pine (apart from pigeon droppings) in 8"x 3"x 6'. The boiler house
man and I both vied for the spoils.

He wanted to split the wood and market it for fire lighting purposes.
(this was 30 years ago). Unfortunately the wood had been impregnated
with a salt which made it virtually fireproof. My use was feed racks for
housed cattle and, now this activity has finished, I am wondering how to
dispose of the residue.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On 14 Nov, 19:41, "
wrote:
Do you have any problems with modern fire-resistance-treated timbers?

Some of the noggins we've salvaged from new roofings haven't burned as
well as we expected - and yes we did dry them thoroughly.

Mary

It seems that not everyone here is familiar with joiners' expressions.

wrote:
On 14 Nov, 19:41, "
wrote:
Do you have any problems with modern fire-resistance-treated timbers?

Some of the noggins we've salvaged from new roofings haven't burned as
well as we expected - and yes we did dry them thoroughly.

Mary

It seems that not everyone here is familiar with joiners' expressions.

It seems that one person here isnt familiar with the concept of
'fireproofing', rather.

Tim Lamb wrote:

My use was feed racks for
housed cattle and, now this activity has finished, I am wondering how to
dispose of the residue.

If it cannot be re used then land fill at a permitted facility or a fully
WID compliant burner are the only two options I can think of, with the
latter all the ash would be considered hazardous.

Most wood fire retardants seem to be simple salts of sodium potassium and
boron and silica, rather than the bromine based stuff, so the products of
combustion shouldn't be too bad. I guess they act by farminng a skin over
the wood which prevents the air getting to char, which then is self
limiting to an extent as char is a good insulator. So the wood self
extinguishes in the same way a match does once the volatiles have burned
off. Any such coating will fail if the wood it protects gets above ~270C,
as one might expect in a good, hot wood burner.

AJH

In message , Steve Firth
writes
wrote:

Do you have any problems with modern fire-resistance-treated timbers?

Some of the noggins we've salvaged from new roofings haven't burned as
well as we expected - and yes we did dry them thoroughly.

The asbestos I tried to burn last week was a bugger to light.

However, if you sprayed it with WD40 ...

--
geoff

geoff wrote:

In message , Steve Firth
writes
wrote:

Do you have any problems with modern fire-resistance-treated timbers?

Some of the noggins we've salvaged from new roofings haven't burned as
well as we expected - and yes we did dry them thoroughly.

The asbestos I tried to burn last week was a bugger to light.

However, if you sprayed it with WD40 ...

Probably need an angle grinder as well...

On 15 Nov, 14:32, andrew wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:
My use was feed racks for
housed cattle and, now this activity has finished, I am wondering how to
dispose of the residue.

If it cannot be re used then land fill at a permitted facility or a fully
WID compliant burner are the only two options I can think of, with the
latter all the ash would be considered hazardous.

Most wood fire retardants seem to be simple salts of sodium potassium and
boron and silica, rather than the bromine based stuff, so the products of
combustion shouldn't be too bad. I guess they act by farminng a skin over
the wood which prevents the air getting to char, which then is self
limiting to an extent as char is a good insulator. So the wood self
extinguishes in the same way a match does once the volatiles have burned
off. Any such coating will fail if the wood it protects gets above ~270C,
as one might expect in a good, hot wood burner.

AJH

Thank you Tim and Andrew.

I don't know that the timber HAS been treated. Perhaps I should have
put it more simply for some and asked if modern structural timbers are
always fire-proofed, thus leading to problems with burning off-cuts in
an efficient stove.

The suspect timber we harvested will burn but it takes time and a lot
of heat to ignite - as NT suggested. It certainly isn't as 'burnable'
as the hardwood logs we've split from trees we've cut ourselves and
seasoned. What's more, the 'glass' window is sooty the morning after
we've burned the off-cuts (we've done it twice).

What made me wonder about treatment was that there were green flames,
indicating the presence of copper salts. That, I wouldn't have
thought, have been used for flame retardation, more likely it would be
against insect damage - but it's a long time since I've worked with
such things and technology changes swiftly.

We have about two evening's worth of the bits left, I'll use those but
would still like to know if it's worth collecting more from a similar
source.

By the way, as I said these were from roofing timbers. Bags of noggins
donated from a window supplier burned perfectly.

Thanks again,

Mary

wrote:
On 15 Nov, 14:32, andrew wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:
My use was feed racks for
housed cattle and, now this activity has finished, I am wondering how to
dispose of the residue.
If it cannot be re used then land fill at a permitted facility or a fully
WID compliant burner are the only two options I can think of, with the
latter all the ash would be considered hazardous.

Most wood fire retardants seem to be simple salts of sodium potassium and
boron and silica, rather than the bromine based stuff, so the products of
combustion shouldn't be too bad. I guess they act by farminng a skin over
the wood which prevents the air getting to char, which then is self
limiting to an extent as char is a good insulator. So the wood self
extinguishes in the same way a match does once the volatiles have burned
off. Any such coating will fail if the wood it protects gets above ~270C,
as one might expect in a good, hot wood burner.

AJH

Thank you Tim and Andrew.

I don't know that the timber HAS been treated. Perhaps I should have
put it more simply for some and asked if modern structural timbers are
always fire-proofed, thus leading to problems with burning off-cuts in
an efficient stove.

The suspect timber we harvested will burn but it takes time and a lot
of heat to ignite - as NT suggested. It certainly isn't as 'burnable'
as the hardwood logs we've split from trees we've cut ourselves and
seasoned. What's more, the 'glass' window is sooty the morning after
we've burned the off-cuts (we've done it twice).

Not fireproofed, but pressure treated against rot.

Split them to expose the inside.

Oh, its probably totally illegal to burn them as well.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not fireproofed, but pressure treated against rot.

Split them to expose the inside.

Oh, its probably totally illegal to burn them as well.

They contain arsenic and other nasties, so it's no sensible to burn
them.

Steve Firth
wibbled on Monday 16 November 2009 12:57

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not fireproofed, but pressure treated against rot.

Split them to expose the inside.

Oh, its probably totally illegal to burn them as well.

They contain arsenic and other nasties, so it's no sensible to burn
them.

Chromated copper arsenate was restricted in 2004 in the UK if my googling is
correct. Banned in timber that may be used in kiddy areas, so I'm assuming
it's unlikely you'd have found it in any common timber after that date.

Unless anyone says that's wrong (I thought it was banned a long time back,
but there you go) it might help to guage if a random bit of wood is safe to
burn or not...

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

Tim W wrote:

Chromated copper arsenate was restricted in 2004 in the UK if my googling
is correct. Banned in timber that may be used in kiddy areas, so I'm
assuming it's unlikely you'd have found it in any common timber after that
date.


It's still used in roofing timber so off cuts are readily available on
building sites. It's an interesting exception (presumably allowed because
the cost of re roofing is high) because a well made roof should stay dry
enough not to need preserving from insect or fungus.

If burned my guess is that arsenic oxide will be in the smoke but I'm not
sure how volatile the chromium species will be. Fixed in the wood the
chromium is inert, the trivalent form, as a combustion product it becomes
the hexavalent form which is more easily assimilated into the body, I'm
told. Not only is it a heavy metal toxin but also believed to be a
carcinogen. I wouldn't advocate burning it in any domestic fire.

In 1990 I lost an argument with the big white chief of a charitee I do work
for to use chestnut stakes for a grazing project. Now he is replacing 3500
cca treated stakes that have rotted at ground level, such is the quality of
pressure treatment. Chestnut would have lasted this long and not been a
disposal problem. As it is I expect t0 see them burning the cca treated
stakes and leaving the ash to contaminate the ground.

AJH

andrew
wibbled on Monday 16 November 2009 20:04

Tim W wrote:

Chromated copper arsenate was restricted in 2004 in the UK if my googling
is correct. Banned in timber that may be used in kiddy areas, so I'm
assuming it's unlikely you'd have found it in any common timber after
that date.


It's still used in roofing timber so off cuts are readily available on
building sites. It's an interesting exception (presumably allowed because
the cost of re roofing is high) because a well made roof should stay dry
enough not to need preserving from insect or fungus.

Interesting. I did see that it was still likely to be used in telegraph
poles and the like, not that one tends to harvest those for the fire...

If burned my guess is that arsenic oxide will be in the smoke but I'm not
sure how volatile the chromium species will be. Fixed in the wood the
chromium is inert, the trivalent form, as a combustion product it becomes
the hexavalent form which is more easily assimilated into the body, I'm
told. Not only is it a heavy metal toxin but also believed to be a
carcinogen. I wouldn't advocate burning it in any domestic fire.

I'm thinking the ash is the biggest problem - likley to get a facefull of
powder brushing it up on a regular basis, and then to go and chuck it on
the veggie patch and eat the results... Hopefully most of the smoke is
going up the chimney (though pity the sweep).

In 1990 I lost an argument with the big white chief of a charitee I do
work for to use chestnut stakes for a grazing project. Now he is replacing
3500 cca treated stakes that have rotted at ground level, such is the
quality of pressure treatment. Chestnut would have lasted this long and
not been a disposal problem. As it is I expect t0 see them burning the cca
treated stakes and leaving the ash to contaminate the ground.

AJH

Another victory for cheapness...

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On 16 Nov, 21:00, Tim W wrote:

If anyone is still looking at this thread:

If burned my guess is that arsenic oxide will be in the smoke but I'm not
sure how volatile the chromium species will be. Fixed in the wood the
chromium is inert, the trivalent form, as a combustion product it becomes
the hexavalent form which is more easily assimilated into the body, I'm
told. Not only is it a heavy metal toxin but also believed to be a
carcinogen. I wouldn't advocate burning it in any domestic fire.

It was burned in a closed stove. Just two small bags, none left.

I'm thinking the ash is the biggest problem - likley to get a facefull of
powder brushing it up on a regular basis,

The stove is so efficient that there's very little ash - or smoke.

and then to go and chuck it on
the veggie patch and eat the results...

The metal salts wouldn't be soluble enough to get into the vegetables
in any significant amount - and since we've already achieved our
biblical spans all the future is a bonus :-)

Hopefully most of the smoke is
going up the chimney (though pity the sweep).

As I said, very little smoke. We sweep our own chimneys but don't go
onto the roof to do it ... the soot is contained and not ingested.

Bearing in mind everything which has been said we shan't look for more
modern building materials which are likely to have been treated with
anything. It doesn't seem necessary, there's a lot of wood around,
lots of our friends have trees they want felling and are happy to keep
the logs until we have space to season them.

Thanks to everyone who has offered polite replies.

Mary

wrote:
On 16 Nov, 21:00, Tim W wrote:

If anyone is still looking at this thread:

If burned my guess is that arsenic oxide will be in the smoke but
I'm not sure how volatile the chromium species will be. Fixed in
the wood the chromium is inert, the trivalent form, as a combustion
product it becomes the hexavalent form which is more easily
assimilated into the body, I'm told. Not only is it a heavy metal
toxin but also believed to be a carcinogen. I wouldn't advocate
burning it in any domestic fire.

It was burned in a closed stove. Just two small bags, none left.

I'm thinking the ash is the biggest problem - likley to get a
facefull of powder brushing it up on a regular basis,

The stove is so efficient that there's very little ash - or smoke.

and then to go and chuck it on
the veggie patch and eat the results...

The metal salts wouldn't be soluble enough to get into the vegetables
in any significant amount - and since we've already achieved our
biblical spans all the future is a bonus :-)

Hopefully most of the smoke is
going up the chimney (though pity the sweep).

As I said, very little smoke. We sweep our own chimneys but don't go
onto the roof to do it ... the soot is contained and not ingested.

Bearing in mind everything which has been said we shan't look for more
modern building materials which are likely to have been treated with
anything. It doesn't seem necessary, there's a lot of wood around,
lots of our friends have trees they want felling and are happy to keep
the logs until we have space to season them.

Thanks to everyone who has offered polite replies.

Good to see you posting.

We seem paranoid about emissions.

When I were a lad, I had a wonderful time playing with mercury - you know
that silvery exciting liqiud that you could splash about and then it would
recombine!

On another group recently (US), I was trying to work out how terrifying
these "nasty" lightless CFLs are due to their mercury content, (I've used
them since the 70s when they costed a fortune but reduced emissions & £s
paid to the ElCo ). From that dialogue, it would appear that the use of CFLs
and the saving on electricity generation (based on their proportion of
generation sources), the mercury issue roughly balances out.

Not having a functioning fireplace, roughly two years out of three, I have a
wonderful bonfire in October that consumes the timber generated in our
garden that I cannot shred for compost, though the larger fractions are
freely given to neighbours who can use them.

Unlike our neighbours, we do not possess a "Compostible Bin" that we could
place in the road for collection as all our organic waste (excluding paper
and that above) is composted and used in the garden.