Now I will say at least in my stove, I really like ash and elm. I can see a difference in it and cherry and walnut.
For some of us oak makes up more than half of our woodlots. Could be worse. I do not care for ash so much either. Black birch and locust is where its at for me!
I'm going to go against the grain. A good load of oak will leave my tanks noticeably hotter than locust for example once the burn is done. I like it plus it's free.
Yup, free is good. the Free species is all i burn. Once i pay for wood the savings is gone and might as well use the oil monster
Oak is good wood but it's not gonna change your life that's for sure. Especially if you're already feeding your stove other hardwoods I agree there's not all that much difference. Had some white oak here and there and that seems to be a notch better but it could have just been my imagination.
Like my 3 fingered friend always says-if it's free it's for me. I don't get how anyone is paying $300 bucks a ton for pellets this year. It's cheaper to buy oil plus there is zero work involved.
I think there is a lot of factors involved here, each stove is different, each oak is different. I could also say quite possibly I could get the room warmer during a burn session with oak over locust but in my particular stove the locust will last considerably longer before a reload.
I think old Black Sabbath is an oak snob You've introduced a foreign fuel into the rotation. Integrate some of your favorite splits on the coal pile with the oak on top before bedtime, that's where oak shines
Wood is pretty cheap around here. I can get cords of hardwood delivered for $140. I like wood processing and it's all around me so I do it, but from a purely dollars and cents point of view I should buy it.
I think the Oak thing is partially mental. We all know that there is X (iirc 6500) btu's in a pound of wood, and "working up" a friggin soaking wet heavy Oak round……….. That bastard must be full of BTU's
I burn what I can get. But, I go way out of my way for White Oak. Splits like a dream (hand splitter), stores well, stacks well, and lasts longer in the stove than Locust. Red Oak is ok, but White Oak is where it's at. I'll take all I can get my hands on.
If I could buy mixed hardwood for $140/ cord is pizz myself. A cord of mixed delivered goes for $250+ around here.
There are very few woods locally, with the small supply, TONS of Amish woodworking, lots of custom cabinet shops and a pulp mill in the county west of us, doesn't leave much for us hoarders. ...
There are so many more widely distributed "hardwood" deciduous trees, but the mystique of oak as the best fuel source is engrained in most folks - kinda like "burning pine is forbidden"
I know I see those prices and wonder. On the other hand I don't know how anyone makes any money selling wood even at the prices they charge by you. Seems like it has to be an off-shoot of another primary business.
Oak's OK. It's decent wood, but it takes so long to season. Oak is nothing compared to shagbark hickory though. While I've not burned hedge, I have a hard time believing that while hedge is a hotter burning wood btu wise than shag, not by much though, that there is no better firewood than shag. Sugar maple is nice too, so is ironwood, but I'd say top choices excluding hedge since I've not burned it is shag #1 #2 ironwood #3 locust #4 beech #5 sugar maple Then the oaks. Ash Then elm Cherry, box elder Etc. I'll take oak, but I think it's a wood that's going off of a reputation rather than reality.
