Disclaimer; This is only my personal experience over the past 2 weeks so don't spank me to hard. O.K? Over a number of years I have had envious thoughts about those who seem to have an endless supply of oak for far wood. On my little spot on this earth, oak for cutting is a very limited tree. My wood consists of mostly elm, ash, hackberry, cherry, birch and maple. Well, it so happened that almost 4 years ago I had the opportunity to take down a 30 inch diameter red oak and bring it home for my stacks. I did what any self respecting farwood hoarder would do and got it CSS ASAP and off the ground. This fall I moved the oak into my shed and had it stacked so that when I got the lesser woods gone it would be there for my burning enjoyment. As Christmas came on I got to bring in the start of my oak splits. All are split to the same size as my other wood and left in the house to get acclimated before going in the stove. Well, I guess Black Sabbath (Oslo 500) didn't get the memo that oak was the chit for BTU's cuz the stove and me aint seeing any difference in heat out put or burn times. Maybe it is my stove or whatever but I can get that 550 pounds of cast iron just as hot with a load of box elder and get as much heat for the same length of time as I am getting with this oak. And I aint gotta look and drool over it like I been doing for almost 4 years with that oak. Well no point to this post, just a personal observation like I said.
Put in a full load of Oak last night.....thinkin' I shoulda just used the Maple. Coals almost the same and only burns up a little quicker than the Oak.
Milleo has got it right. You won't get a hotter fire with oak but it should last longer. Still, last night I put 4 oak splits in the stove. We'd been using cherry and ash so far but last night used just oak. Stove had been peaking around 550-600 but last night it almost got to 700. I'd guess the fire lasted maybe 1 1/2 - 2 hours longer than with ash and cherry.
Depends on the type of oak too. Red and pin oak are "average", but white oak gives a much better/longer kick.
Have a look at the BTU/cord tables and oak is not all that great compared to things like hedge or even mulberry. Oak does have a loyal following and demands a premium from wood buyers. Nothing about your experience really strikes me as unusual after everything I have read here and on other forums. I do not have any oak in my piles so nothing I will know soon from my own experiences.
I'll be able to comment on its burning properties in 2018. I will say that it splits one hell of a lot easier than the sweet gum and elm I've been working on recently.
I said the same thing last year. I thought the hard maple outperformed the red oak in every way. Dried faster, lit better, burned hotter, and burned just as long. I'm waiting on next year for a real good test. Have a little over a cord of both plus a cord of hackberry and some black locust. I'm really curious to see how they all compare..
I dont normally look at internet tables like that. I look at the rate at which my stacks are shrinking and the thermometer on the wall.
Also, different species (and to a lesser extent individual trees) have different properties; how the wood is split and how it is loaded in the stove also matter. Then there is the matter of what one needs the stove to do at any given time. A stack of relatively small split pine is about perfect for bringing the stove up to temp quickly from a cold start. Big oak splits are going to hold a slow steady fire a lot better than the pine would. It really all depends on what is needed at any given time. While the dense woods ultimately yield more BTU/volume than lightweight wood does, the way that heat is delivered may not result in more heat output at any given time. The lightweight wood may burn much faster for a shorter period of time, yielding more heat per hour for a shorter number of hours and less total heat per load.
Well not to turn this into an Albert Eintsien type of debate. But that is just the world as I see it in my own back yard or basement as the case may be. I mean really, heating with wood isn't/ dosent have to be that complicated fer goodness sakes. Even a caveman could do it a millennium ago.
Butcher , Yup, thats what i thought too. I went from 100% bitternut hickory to mixed white/red oak. Its not so glorious as i thought it would be. Just wood.
Same here Backwoods Savage, same stove too-I have been burning maple and much less so ash all winter-On Sat with the temps slowly dropping I put a rather large split-limb ugly of white oak in the stove and it almost ran me out-I had a good bed of coals when I loaded but my temp went from 72 to 78 within an hour-a very noticeable increase,,,gf was very happy, so I was happy...granted it was white and not red but I'm looking forward to the cords of white oak I have drying for future winters. 11 degrees forecasted for here tonight so I broke out a lil beech...
I never had much oak around to burn until last year I had a pile of 3yr seasoned red and white oak. My premium wood around prior to that was black locust, sugar maple, beech and occasionally hickory. Red oak burns fine but it doesn't make my socks roll up and down. I do see some difference in white oak though, but when I need the big guns I'll stick to black locust, sugar maple and shag bark.
Yep, Butcher , I'll pretty much agree. Its good wood, nothing too special about it beside its long drying time. I'll take honey locust or mulberry overtop of it any day. But I wont pass it up either... Great little observation piece you had. Always good to hear different opinions from others on different wood. Like last year I burnt some decent amount of Ash and wasn't too impressed with it. It in my opinion would rank right up there with cherry, walnut, and hackberry.
