This is great information for all who burn Oak especially those of us in the northeast Thanks billb3!
I got better pictures today. I usually try to improve the design each time I build ba new one, like 2x6's for the uprights and 2x4's instead of 1x4 cross pieces. Also I usually use 4" solid cap block on the ground, with 4x4 across (front to back), then the 2 long 4x4's fastened to them. It will be a bit shaky when empty, but very solid with wood in it.
Thanks for posting the pictures. That makes it a lot more clear. What is the size of the roof you put on this? Is the material a standard 4'x8' or larger? Does that overhang keep it pretty dry? The 2 ft. (depth) plywood that I have put over my firewood does a reasonable job of keeping the wood dry but might have been better had it been 3 ft. in depth. A shame you can't buy sheets of plywood 3 ft. in depth. ;-) I also noticed that you double row the wood. I have read places where they discourage that. Has that double rowing caused any issues drying the wood? I can see a number of pros to double rowing including twice as much storage for the same linear feet. Also I am sure it is more stable than a single rack where I have had to uses posts to make it more stable. I occasionally have been able to find pallets made of 2X4 that would obviously be stronger. Thanks again
Lots of members have double rows, including me. It doesn't appear to affect my splits. Wind and sun, covered and 3yrs, should get most wood dry to burn efficiently.
I am using 50x50 pallets, with 3 18" rows of wood stacked on them, total 54" wide. I had to use a little wood off that rack, made it easier to take pictures. Never had a problem getting the wood dry like that, but a double row would be better, we have hot summers down here. Put fans on it until we get the rack full. The roof is 36" metal roofing panels 10' long, seems to work fine. If you support the pallets on the bottom, they should be fine, we have several like that, no problem. Just build one and try it, think you will like it. If I can help any way, just ask.
I cut to around 33 cm/13 inches as I feed the stove north-south. I stack two rows deep because I can reach the back row easily. I want to build some permanent storage shed and if I stack two rows deep, I can pull from the back row and the front row evenly; I want to move wood around the least amount of time.
also "he roof is 36" metal roofing panels 10' long, seems to work fine. If you support the pallets on the bottom, they should be fine, we have several like that, no problem. Just build one and try it, think you will like it. If I can help any way, just ask. " Now I am confused. If you are using 50" pallets is it 2 50" pallets in depth if you want to have 3 rows of 18" wood that would be 54" in depth. Are you doubling the 36" roof panel to have a total roof over this of 72" in depth? Please clarify if you can. This looks like a good solution to try. It is also interesting having fans you use. My piles is a ways from the electric so doubt I could do that. I do get a lot of wind here.
I always have found it quite sad how the United States has been the one hold out for going to the metric system. They have been talking about this change for a while.
I did a study/report/debate on this in H.S. in support or why the US should be on the metric system. It told of the countless billions we loose each year in trading with the rest of the world along with other points. Since that research, I have come to realize that even back in those days, "facts and findings" are nothing more than propaganda and are biased to the view they wish to represent. I realize that the US must be doing something wrong after being the world's largest economic power for the last 150 years. And then there's that whole moon thing that was over 50 years ago too. What can't we fix ourselves???
Ok, sorry I got confusing. The roof is 2 panels wide for a total roof size of 72" x 120". On the pallet issue the floor footprint is 50" wide x 100" long before putting ends on...probably 94" when complete. I just let about 2" or so hang over the sides to get 3 stacks wide.
In 1999, NASA lost the MarsClimate Orbiter due to failure to use the metric system was a common headline. Never once did you see " NASA loses Mars Climate Orbiter due to use of metric system" . That would subvert the faux woke agenda.
I seem to recall searching the internet about this a while ago. The articles I read seem to indicate that there was a high cost to converting over to metric and not that much of a reward to do that. One would think if there was a lot of reward to going metric then businesses would do that. I the United States was a smaller country then they would have been forced to change with everyone else. When I laid laminate flooring somewhere I read the recommendation to use a metric tape measure and did that. It worked a lot easier IMO.
"When I laid laminate flooring somewhere I read the recommendation to use a metric tape measure and did that. It worked a lot easier IMO. " It was a lot easier to use the decimal system that a metric measuring system. With the English you are dealing with fractions. It was just a lot easier. This was especially true when you wanted to center the flooring so you didn't end with a very small length of laminate flooring.
OK. I thought that maybe it was a case of being easier to read metric as opposed to fractions. But the last statement of centering flooring doesn't make sense to me. No matter what, the physical dimensions of the room are the same whether you call them centimeters or inches, right? The dimensions of the flooring is also a steady, so again, no matter what, you will end up with the same cutoffs. Either way, glad the job went well for you! Nothing like a new floor to spruce up a room!
You are right that the dimensions of the floor I installed laminate flooring on is the same but different measuring units. The centering was easier using decimals both for overall layout and when cutting the laminate for strips as I seem to recall. YMMV.
