Tom Watson wrote:

If a pound of wood is a pound of wood and a pound of wood is worth
6400 btu's, then why is a pound of sawdust worth 8500 btu's?

Why has this thread gone down a qualitative path when the question
that is at the core of the inquiry would seem to be available to
quantitative analysis?

Is there a way to solve the problem - or is everyone full of ****?

There's average data published for various woods -- the heat content
isn't the same for all. For the difference between solid wood and
sawdust, the difference has to be specie and, perhaps, combustion
process. It's also a possibility one or both numbers is wrong or at
least inconsistent in what is/was measured.

I've not taken the time to go look much myself as whatever wood there is
here is what I can salvage from trimming the elms around the place and
they're lousy for firewood, but since there's no forested areas within
250 miles it isn't cost-effective otherwise.

If a pound of wood is a pound of wood and a pound of wood is worth
6400 btu's, then why is a pound of sawdust worth 8500 btu's?

Why has this thread gone down a qualitative path when the question
that is at the core of the inquiry would seem to be available to
quantitative analysis?

Is there a way to solve the problem - or is everyone full of ****?


tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
If a pound of wood is a pound of wood and a pound of wood is worth
6400 btu's, then why is a pound of sawdust worth 8500 btu's?

Why has this thread gone down a qualitative path when the question
that is at the core of the inquiry would seem to be available to
quantitative analysis?

Is there a way to solve the problem - or is everyone full of ****?

I don't know where you get your figures, but perhaps sawdust is dryer than
wood.

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
If a pound of wood is a pound of wood and a pound of wood is worth
6400 btu's, then why is a pound of sawdust worth 8500 btu's?

Why has this thread gone down a qualitative path when the question
that is at the core of the inquiry would seem to be available to
quantitative analysis?

Is there a way to solve the problem - or is everyone full of ****?


tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)


According to these guys, it is 8600 per pound.
http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/hortihints/0110b.html

When considering the use of wood for heat, University of Illinois Extension
foresters offer the following information and advice: All species of wood
has the same Btu (British Thermal Units) per pound of wood; roughly 8600 Btu
per pound @ 15% moisture content. As the moisture content goes up in the
firewood, the heating value goes down (less Btu's) because more energy
(heat) is needed to drive off the moisture in the wood before it will burn.
This is why firewood needs to be seasoned at least 6 to 9 months before it
is burned. Freshly cut wood is not very efficient for heating use.





These guys are using 20% moisture for 7,000 Btu

http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/forst2/c640.pdf

Comparison to Other Fuels

How does wood compare to other fuels? In most

cases wood will be used as supplemental heating to

your conventional system of natural gas, L.P. gas, or

electricity. Table 4 gives Btu values of common fuels.

TABLE 4. BTU VALUES

OF COMMON FUELS

WOOD (per pound, high heat value,

20% moisture) 7,000

NATURAL GAS (per cubic foot) 1,000

L.P. GAS (per gallon) 92,000

ELECTRICITY (per kilowatt hour) 3,412

FUEL OIL (per gallon) 140,000

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:27:47 GMT, "toller" wrote:

I don't know where you get your figures, but perhaps sawdust is dryer than
wood.


If you had read the thread you would know where I got my figures,
since the were quoted.


tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
If a pound of wood is a pound of wood and a pound of wood is worth
6400 btu's, then why is a pound of sawdust worth 8500 btu's?

Dunno. But I do know this - it takes a bigger piece of pine to make a pound
of wood than it does maple, and that pine is going to generate a lot more
creosote than that piece of maple unless it's really dry - which makes it
even lighter. Net/net - pine (and poplar) suck for firewood in the
northeast. I burn some pine but more to get rid of it than for any real
heat value.


Why has this thread gone down a qualitative path when the question
that is at the core of the inquiry would seem to be available to
quantitative analysis?

Isn't that how it's supposed to work?


Is there a way to solve the problem - or is everyone full of ****?


Dunno. Only know what my experiences are.
--

-Mike-

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:27:47 GMT, "toller" wrote:

I don't know where you get your figures, but perhaps sawdust is dryer
than
wood.


If you had read the thread you would know where I got my figures,
since the were quoted.


toller and I must both have broken newsreaders then Tom, because I don't see
any quoted text in your original post either.

--

-Mike-

In article , Tom Watson
wrote:

If you had read the thread you would know where I got my figures,
since the were quoted

Didn't see anything quoted in your message, Tom, and there's no
reference header pointing to the thread you may be talking about.

The wreck gets uppwards of 400 posts a day. Maybe you have time to read
and follow all the threads.

Some of us have work to do, so we can't.

djb

--
"Modern technology has enabled us to communicate and organize with speed and
efficiency never before possible. People have gotten less competent to
compensate for this." - CW

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
If a pound of wood is a pound of wood and a pound of wood is worth
6400 btu's, then why is a pound of sawdust worth 8500 btu's?

Why has this thread gone down a qualitative path when the question
that is at the core of the inquiry would seem to be available to
quantitative analysis?

Is there a way to solve the problem - or is everyone full of ****?


tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

Cut it, split it, stack it, and burn it. Don't analyze it.

In article ,
Tom Watson wrote:

If a pound of wood is a pound of wood and a pound of wood is worth
6400 btu's, then why is a pound of sawdust worth 8500 btu's?

I'm thinking the small particle size leads to more efficient and
complete combustion. Similar to the atomization of fuel in an internal
combustion engine.

But then again, what the hell do I know?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article ,
Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

I'm thinking the small particle size leads to more efficient and
complete combustion. Similar to the atomization of fuel in an internal
combustion engine.

Naw.

It's because it explodes in the presence of static 'lectricity and PVC.

--
"Modern technology has enabled us to communicate and organize with speed and
efficiency never before possible. People have gotten less competent to
compensate for this." - CW

Dave Balderstone wrote in
tone.ca:

In article ,
Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

I'm thinking the small particle size leads to more efficient and
complete combustion. Similar to the atomization of fuel in an internal
combustion engine.

Naw.

It's because it explodes in the presence of static 'lectricity and PVC.


You didn't ground that sucker like Michael Baglio posted? ;-)

Patriarch,
using sawdust for 'slow oxidation' in the carbon cycle...

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:15:39 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Tom Watson
wrote:

If you had read the thread you would know where I got my figures,
since the were quoted

Didn't see anything quoted in your message, Tom, and there's no
reference header pointing to the thread you may be talking about.

The wreck gets uppwards of 400 posts a day. Maybe you have time to read
and follow all the threads.

Some of us have work to do, so we can't.

djb

(re posted for the benefit of the blind and the overworked)


Since you are a wooddorker, you must make sawdust.

"Pressed sawdust firelogs. These are made from tightly compressed 100%
pure wood sawdust, without the addition of waxes, chemicals or other
additives. Pound for pound, these give even more heat than natural
firewood – 8500 BTU per pound in comparison with 6400 BTU for natural
wood. They can be used in fireplaces, woodstoves, inserts, and
campfires. All in all, these firelogs give all the heat and more of
natural wood, and have the convenience of popular wax firelogs."

http://www.worldwise.com/firorfir.html


tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:15:39 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Tom Watson
wrote:

If you had read the thread you would know where I got my figures,
since the were quoted

Didn't see anything quoted in your message, Tom, and there's no
reference header pointing to the thread you may be talking about.

The wreck gets uppwards of 400 posts a day. Maybe you have time to read
and follow all the threads.

Some of us have work to do, so we can't.

djb

(re posted for the benefit of the blind and the overworked)


Since you are a wooddorker, you must make sawdust.

"Pressed sawdust firelogs. These are made from tightly compressed 100%
pure wood sawdust, without the addition of waxes, chemicals or other
additives. Pound for pound, these give even more heat than natural
firewood - 8500 BTU per pound in comparison with 6400 BTU for natural
wood. They can be used in fireplaces, woodstoves, inserts, and
campfires. All in all, these firelogs give all the heat and more of
natural wood, and have the convenience of popular wax firelogs."

I think the key is in the "tightly compressed" area. Wood incorporates air
and water and other impurities that don't burn. These logs are more nearly
pure combustible material and denser than wood so they should yield more
heat per cu. ft.

Bob

"Tom Watson" wrote in message

"Pressed sawdust firelogs. These are made from tightly compressed 100%
pure wood sawdust, without the addition of waxes, chemicals or other
additives. Pound for pound, these give even more heat than natural
firewood - 8500 BTU per pound in comparison with 6400 BTU for natural
wood. They can be used in fireplaces, woodstoves, inserts, and
campfires. All in all, these firelogs give all the heat and more of
natural wood, and have the convenience of popular wax firelogs."

http://www.worldwise.com/firorfir.html


Look at t he numbers I posted on Btu and moisture content and you see a big
variation from 15% to 20% MC. These guys are using a higher MC to make
their product look better. The process of compressing either dries the
sawdust further or the dry it ahead of time. The actual caloric content of
the fiber structure is not changed, only the amount of water that adds
weight to it is regulated. The pressed logs are probably made with sawdust
from KD scrap lumber, not just a fallen tree like most firewood.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...



Is there a way to solve the problem - or is everyone full of ****?

Simple, use two different BTU measuring devices.
I worked in a lab for many moons. If you're looking for a specific piece of
data, we could deliver it.

Since you are a wooddorker, you must make sawdust.

"Pressed sawdust firelogs. These are made from tightly compressed 100%
pure wood sawdust, without the addition of waxes, chemicals or other
additives. Pound for pound, these give even more heat than natural
firewood – 8500 BTU per pound in comparison with 6400 BTU for natural
wood. They can be used in fireplaces, woodstoves, inserts, and
campfires. All in all, these firelogs give all the heat and more of
natural wood, and have the convenience of popular wax firelogs."

http://www.worldwise.com/firorfir.html


Without more detailed information the data points on that web page are
worthless.

Wood is wood - if it is ground to dust or one log a pound of wood will
have the same heating value. There is no chemical difference that is
dependent on form factor of the wood. It may burn faster or slower or
more completely depending on the form factor which affects how well
oxygen can get to the fuel - but that doesn't change the amount of heat
there.

Now, that being said different species will have different heating
values for a pound of wood - it has to do with the amount of resin in
the wood. Go read a bag of softwood pellets and a bag of hardwood
pellets. The softwood pellets are usually much higher BTU content. I
found an EPA report once that gave most wood fiber as having close to
8000BTU/lb, but resin being 17000BTU/lb. Real logs being of course a
mixture of both.

There is also the moisture content of the material being burned.
Materials have different caloric content - usually measured in BTU/lb of
"dry matter". This assumes 100% material and 0% moisture. If you have
say 8500BTU/lb dry matter wood, and it was at 10% moisture then you have
only 90% of the weight in dry matter. You also need to subtract out the
energy to vaporise that water. It takes about 1050 BTU/lb to evaporate
that water. This gives us this
8500 * 0.9 = 7650 BTU for the dry matter
0.1 lbs water * 1050 = 105 BTU for the water evaporation.
Combine this and we get 7545 BTU/lb of usable heat for that 10% moisture
wood.

Then if you get the moisture content high enough and the stove
temperature low enough you may get incomplete combustion which means
that some of the burnable material goes up the chimney as smoke. This
would further reduce the usable energy.

Now of course there are all kinds of wild claims by various people about
how much heat is in their particular material. I haven't ever
researched the wood stuff as much as corn and pellets. But I do know
that in that area there are some WILD exaggerations by some
manufacturers. Many use the Dry Matter number and don't account for the
moisture content and others just plain out lie.

All that being said I am with Charlie and like good hardwood for a wood
stove. It banks nicely for the size stove I have used. I know that
pine has more BTU/lb, but I can't get half as many pounds into the stove
and because of it's low density and high resin content it burns so fast
that much of the heat goes up the chimney rather than being radiated
into the room. Maybe if I had a bigger stove, or a different type of
softwood it would work better for me. Then there is storage - pine in
the wood pile goes punky really fast while oak can be several years old
and still great.

Dan

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 23:35:44 -0600, Patriarch wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote in
tone.ca:

In article ,
Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

I'm thinking the small particle size leads to more efficient and
complete combustion. Similar to the atomization of fuel in an internal
combustion engine.

Naw.

It's because it explodes in the presence of static 'lectricity and PVC.


You didn't ground that sucker like Michael Baglio posted? ;-)
FYI:
http://www.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=7c9nvvg39cd5aeqva39icg99990l91t11k%404ax.co m

Note the google.CA rather than google.COM domain. I like the old interface
better, which is still being used by "nationa" googles. I wonder if you
Merkins get redirected to google.com when you type in google.ca.

--
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 23:35:44 -0600, Patriarch wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote in
tone.ca:

In article ,
Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

I'm thinking the small particle size leads to more efficient and
complete combustion. Similar to the atomization of fuel in an internal
combustion engine.

Naw.

It's because it explodes in the presence of static 'lectricity and PVC.


You didn't ground that sucker like Michael Baglio posted? ;-)
FYI:
http://www.google.ca/groups?safe=ima...t11k@4ax .com

Note the google.CA rather than google.COM domain. I wonder if you Merkins
get redirected to google.com when you type in google.ca.
--
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html

Tom Watson wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:15:39 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:


In article , Tom Watson
wrote:


If you had read the thread you would know where I got my figures,
since the were quoted

Didn't see anything quoted in your message, Tom, and there's no
reference header pointing to the thread you may be talking about.

The wreck gets uppwards of 400 posts a day. Maybe you have time to read
and follow all the threads.

Some of us have work to do, so we can't.

djb


(re posted for the benefit of the blind and the overworked)


Since you are a wooddorker, you must make sawdust.

"Pressed sawdust firelogs. These are made from tightly compressed 100%
pure wood sawdust, without the addition of waxes, chemicals or other
additives. Pound for pound, these give even more heat than natural
firewood – 8500 BTU per pound in comparison with 6400 BTU for natural
wood. They can be used in fireplaces, woodstoves, inserts, and
campfires. All in all, these firelogs give all the heat and more of
natural wood, and have the convenience of popular wax firelogs."

http://www.worldwise.com/firorfir.html


tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

Just because there is a web site that says that or a book
that says it, it isn't necessarily so. Wood is wood, and if
it has the same moisture content, the BTU per pound will be
the same.

Arguments about compression are pretty useless since
compression has no effect except to change the density.
Arguments about volatiles/resins are in the same category
since volatiles/resins won't make that much difference as
they displace cellulose (by weight) which probably has a
higher energy content per pound that resin.

While some of the stuff in the cited article is pretty
standard fair, some of the stuff is just plain wrong. If
one wants to really find out about wood they go to one of
the wood or forests institutes or groups not affiliated with
any product but just promote wood use or wood products in
general.

"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
Just because there is a web site that says that or a book that says it, it
isn't necessarily so. Wood is wood, and if it has the same moisture
content, the BTU per pound will be the same.

Arguments about compression are pretty useless since compression has no
effect except to change the density.

True, but the compressed product is probably very dry compared to the wood
they selected for testing. One of the New England pellet makers buys scrap
sawdust from my wood supplier, CT hardwood Group. They sell dried wood at
about 8% mc and also use it for custom moldings and truck floors. Once
compressed, the pellet is probably about the same 8% so if you compare that
with typical 3 month old firewood at 30%, the numbers, pound for pound, are
probably true.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

In article ,
"patrick conroy" wrote:

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...



Is there a way to solve the problem - or is everyone full of ****?

Simple, use two different BTU measuring devices.
I worked in a lab for many moons. If you're looking for a specific piece of
data, we could deliver it.



And I thought a btu was a btu. hmpft!

--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message

Just because there is a web site that says that or a book that says it, it
isn't necessarily so. Wood is wood, and if it has the same moisture
content, the BTU per pound will be the same.

Arguments about compression are pretty useless since compression has no
effect except to change the density.


True, but the compressed product is probably very dry compared to the wood
they selected for testing. One of the New England pellet makers buys scrap
sawdust from my wood supplier, CT hardwood Group. They sell dried wood at
about 8% mc and also use it for custom moldings and truck floors. Once
compressed, the pellet is probably about the same 8% so if you compare that
with typical 3 month old firewood at 30%, the numbers, pound for pound, are
probably true.

Yep it probably is very dry, but compression has nothing to
do with the moisture content, unless it is so wet that the
water is shoved out. It's kind of like comparing a fresh
apple with dried slices.

I don't know what 3 month old firewood is? you mean green
stuff cut and left for 3 months? I never burned any green
cut stuff that sat less than 1 year. Living in an arid
climate my firewood was probably 8 % mc or less.

Much of the stuff I burned had been downed from 3-15 years
and was very dry.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:05:07 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
wrote:



Just because there is a web site that says that or a book
that says it, it isn't necessarily so. Wood is wood, and if
it has the same moisture content, the BTU per pound will be
the same.

Arguments about compression are pretty useless since
compression has no effect except to change the density.
Arguments about volatiles/resins are in the same category
since volatiles/resins won't make that much difference as
they displace cellulose (by weight) which probably has a
higher energy content per pound that resin.

While some of the stuff in the cited article is pretty
standard fair, some of the stuff is just plain wrong. If
one wants to really find out about wood they go to one of
the wood or forests institutes or groups not affiliated with
any product but just promote wood use or wood products in
general.


http://www.clarkpublicutilities.com/...s2003/03_01_05


tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...
Arguments about compression are pretty useless since
compression has no effect except to change the density.
Arguments about volatiles/resins are in the same category
since volatiles/resins won't make that much difference as
they displace cellulose (by weight) which probably has a
higher energy content per pound that resin.


Well, no. Resins occupy the areas of the wood otherwise filled with air,
and they have a higher BTU yield by weight.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:05:07 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
wrote:

Wood is wood, and if
it has the same moisture content, the BTU per pound will be
the same.

No it isn't. The species makes a huge difference.

In article , Luigi Zanasi
wrote:

Note the google.CA rather than google.COM domain. I like the old interface
better, which is still being used by "nationa" googles. I wonder if you
Merkins get redirected to google.com when you type in google.ca.

I've noticed the redirect doesn't happen if I type a phrase into the
search pane in Safari (Mac browser) but does if I type the url
directly.

Most odd.

--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows

"Jim Polaski" wrote in message
...


And I thought a btu was a btu. hmpft!

"Sure it is!" he said loudly in front of the Congressional Inquiry Board
secretly hoping they did not ask how the measuring devices were calibrated.



You got the money? We got the data!

patrick conroy wrote:

"Jim Polaski" wrote in message
...


And I thought a btu was a btu. hmpft!

"Sure it is!" he said loudly in front of the Congressional Inquiry Board
secretly hoping they did not ask how the measuring devices were calibrated.
....

Thre are a few transcripts of NRC Advisory Committe on Reactor
Safeguards (ACRS) hearings from (much) earlier life wherein my youthful
cheek comes out rather more strongly than intended...But one particular
member back then and I just could never seem to avoid antagonizing one
another---years later I learned he actually had enjoyed it while I was
sweating bullets rueing my just uttered indiscretion...)

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:05:07 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
wrote:

Wood is wood, and if
it has the same moisture content, the BTU per pound will be
the same.

No it isn't. The species makes a huge difference.

You've got an uphill climb to prove that here, Andy. Pick any place I've
seen, and a pound of hemi/cellulose makes as much heat as any other. You
wouldn't have some data to support your statement, would you?

TaskMule wrote:

Cut it, split it, stack it, and burn it. Don't analyze it.

Unless it's red gum. Cut it, whack on it 50,000 times with all manner of
splitterly devices, then saw the damn stuff up with a chainsaw after
failing utterly to split any of it. Then burn it.

Or better yet, turn on the gas logs when you're in the mood for a fire.
Every time I start to get romantic about how much different it used to be
having a real fire in the fireplace, I just look at my old mangled maul
standing in the corner and smile.

(I was a lot more lithe and lean and stuff in those days though, boy.
Especially swinging that damn 16# sledge that used to belong to my great
grandfather.)

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Wood is wood, and if
it has the same moisture content, the BTU per pound will be
the same.

No it isn't. The species makes a huge difference.


You've got an uphill climb to prove that here, Andy. Pick any place I've
seen, and a pound of hemi/cellulose makes as much heat as any other. You
wouldn't have some data to support your statement, would you?


How about this white paper from Forest Product Lab ( a pretty reliable
source I've found):

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1987/white87a.pdf

In there a range there of 9120 BTU/lb for Redwood to 8440 BTU/lb for
Yellow-poplar. Thats an 8% difference. Not huge but significant.

There is another document at:

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr29.pdf

That has a much more comprehensive list. This shows a range of ~7300 to
~12200 BTU/lb. The highest is more than 60% above the lowest. Now
there are different studies all in that table, but even comparing like
studies gives almost as big of a range of values.

The softwoods are generally higher because of their resin content. (that
pitch is just like oil)

Hope that helps.

Dan

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:52:25 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:

You've got an uphill climb to prove that here, Andy.

Comparing cellulose to cellulose is pretty dull, but try resinous
larch vs birch or willow. Even though the pound per pound difference
is much less than the volumetric difference, it's still significant.

"Dan Oelke" wrote in message
...

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr29.pdf

That has a much more comprehensive list. This shows a range of ~7300 to
~12200 BTU/lb. The highest is more than 60% above the lowest. Now
there are different studies all in that table, but even comparing like
studies gives almost as big of a range of values.

The softwoods are generally higher because of their resin content. (that
pitch is just like oil)

Hope that helps.


That we knew, Dan. I've mentioned it a few times already, as have others.
Plus or minus extractives, is the phrase I've used. The greater the amount
of extractives, the greater the energy density, which, as you note, can vary
from a resinous high of 12K to a miserable low of 8K 33% (50 if you're
trying to make your argument) is a big swing, but the majority clusters
within 10%. Your low is for bark.

Then there's the footnote - "clusters at 8500" and the disclaimer of a post
hoc study that the methods used to determine the data were not consistent.

"Silvan" wrote in message
...
(I was a lot more lithe and lean and stuff in those days though, boy.
Especially swinging that damn 16# sledge that used to belong to my great
grandfather.)

--

Maybe that was part of the problem. My neighbors next farm south had been
doing wood forever. One used a maul (go-devil for NE folks), the other an
axe, to split elm. Sixty seven and seventy three were their ages, with the
73 swinging the axe....

I retired my sledge this year. No more kids in residence to help the old
man with 4' lengths. Susan and I went to 20", and a splitter.

"George" george@least wrote in message

I retired my sledge this year. No more kids in residence to help the old
man with 4' lengths. Susan and I went to 20", and a splitter.

I used a maul instead of a sledge. The hard part of using a sledge is
getting your wife to hold the wedge while you swing.

George wrote:
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...

Arguments about compression are pretty useless since
compression has no effect except to change the density.
Arguments about volatiles/resins are in the same category
since volatiles/resins won't make that much difference as
they displace cellulose (by weight) which probably has a
higher energy content per pound that resin.



Well, no. Resins occupy the areas of the wood otherwise filled with air,
and they have a higher BTU yield by weight.


I think you missed the point! And they don't have weight?
You are telling me that a pound of sap has more BTU's than a
pound of cellulose and lignin? Could be, but it isn't going
to be significant in normal tree proportions.

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:05:07 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
wrote:


Wood is wood, and if
it has the same moisture content, the BTU per pound will be
the same.


No it isn't. The species makes a huge difference.

Read a book. Read several. We're talking about per pound
not volume. Dried wood of any type is composed mostly of
cellulose and lignin. Slight differences in aromatics. You
may be thinking about density, that's why we are comparing
BTU's on the base of weight.

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:48:21 -0500, Tom Watson
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:27:47 GMT, "toller" wrote:

I don't know where you get your figures, but perhaps sawdust is dryer than
wood.


If you had read the thread you would know where I got my figures,
since the were quoted.

If you had _posted_ to the thread that would have made it all a lot
easier to follow on....

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:02:03 -0500, Tom Watson
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

If a pound of wood is a pound of wood and a pound of wood is worth
6400 btu's, then why is a pound of sawdust worth 8500 btu's?

Simple. Because it's dry.
- Water has a negative calorific value in burning. It turns to steam
which takes energy, and that all goes up the chimney
- water causes the wood to burn slower, and smoke more. That all
goes up the chimney as unburnt material.