Dave, according to the Alaskan btu chart you have, all of those btu ratings are higher by a minimum of 2000 btu's for each of those species than our comparable wood of those species here in the lower 48 States. I don't know if that's right or wrong, but it's interesting to say the least. I know the soil and climate of each tree alters how they grow, so it could make then have more btu's. Maybe the extra cold in AK has each species holding onto more btu's as a way of survival of the extreme cold?
My ugliest not that bad A few crowns that split funky & some with a twist & bow that Would cause a stack to fall over Few rotten centers,( compost )
I remember having a conversation about this with Dave and others but cant recall where it is. If you look at his chart it shows Tamarack as 16,000 mbtus but on chimney sweep it shows larch being 19.5, although they are very similar trees the tamarack is quite a bit smaller than the larch. Also his birch has higher btus than what my impression is of the birch around her that is (supposedly) 20 mbtus. The shorter length of growing season likely makes the trees denser but what do I know? Fun stuff
Yea I see different Ratingof the same species on different charts, I just "assume" the test is done to the same standard & it's variances in the makeup of the wood fibers for multiple reasons Nature throws in so many variables, I believe there's different BTUs for the same species , even grown a few miles apart. Not that it matters to me, I burn birch, it's the best BTU wood in my area.
That's what I'm talkin about. Uglies that test the mettle of a splitter. They don't stack well in the rack or the stove. A little extra pleasure burning the ones that fought ya . Winning ! I burnt you, you bastard !!!!!!
They seem to dry faster too, more surface splintery area to wick away moisture Sure burns good in the fire pie
