Been scouring the net a bit on wood BTU's and what Im seeing is some variation from source to source. I also stake claims from the BTU guide here. There isn't anything wrong to this and the author is doing wonderful to keeping these resources in hand. However looking up a wood that is said its better than Oak but then its Actually listed below that in terms of BTU's, I'm a bit confused. Even a difference in 5 million BTU's is actually quite a lot. Yes I know it all burns, we're just comparing apples to oranges though when there are some gaps that are noticeable. I guess this has a lot to do with the math you begin with?
Which means the charts are like many other things; they are simply guides and not necessarily accurate all the time. One that gets me is cherry how it is always bragged up but I have never put it very high on the btu charts. We burn it in the daytime.
Middle of the scale I bet. I would Just say that cherry is coveted just likely for its clean burn and smell.
I find that Cherry seasons quickly, heats well and leaves a nice bed of coals. I prefer oak or shagbark hickory but won't cut them unless they are damaged or blown down (food for the critters you know). But then again I will burn any type of
This is the one Ive always used FatBoy85. It seems to go along well with the opinion of wood burners in my region and also my 'real world' experiences. Of course we dont have oak and ironwood so where those sit in the grand scheme of things matters little to me. Also depending on your region the same wood may have different btus from others depending on their growth environment and some wood (see what I did there?) argue that older trees are denser. Sweep's Library - Firewood Heat Value Comparison Charts
There's a reason Mother Nature don't write BTU charts Like a chart showing the average US temperature in March Not much use for it in my area
You would also think by looking a those charts that wood like pine and cottonwood are completely worthless but that is what I have here and will use it all winter long.
That's what I reference as well. People also generalize the same species. Like oak. White oak outperforms red in almost every category hardness BTU etc. The ash family is the same way black green white. Sugar maple and beech(presumably hickory I don't have enough experience burning it) both can cause my stove to go nuclear. Red oak is nice but there is a huge difference in burn time and perceived heat comparing it to beech or sugar maple.
Your lodge pole pine is pretty good on the BTU charts & cutting dead standing with few limbs makes for a nice stack of fast seasoning wood !
Used that one too for comparison, theres also an Illinois one that is a short hardwood list but registers BL as 28. Something MBTU's Burning Wood and Wood Characteristics - University of Illinois Extension I fully agree how tree growth is so much different here than elsewhere.This gives meaning to trees that grow on the east coast and colder areas that are huge are likely to be far older and much more dense than fast growing younger trees in a warmer area. Its not going to matter to me so much now but im giving it its due as its just important to know that there would likely be such differences. The curiosity here just means Im wondering if there would likely be a source for the western part of the us as growth patterns are different. I'm naturally curious and the deeper learning of wood is more new to me.
Read how the BTU test is done & do it for your wood Dry it --- weigh it ........ & calculate the BTU need an oven & an accurate scale There was a member on one of the sites that did the science & posted the info
I've wondered about tree density in colder regions as well. Maybe I'm just crazy, but our poplar trees (populus trembilode? aka quaking aspen/trembling aspen) seems to punch harder here than it should be able to. Firewood BTU Ratings Chart Best Firewood Heat Energy Content This chart rates quaking aspen higher than most, so I dunno. I find I can throttle the air back better on dry poplar vs dry pine. I'm not saying everyone should start using it, but I think it gets an unfair reputation.
The source for those BTU/weight charts is from textbooks or other references that list the density of a species. From that alone you can calculate everything except green cord weight if you make an assumption as to the volume of solids in a cord. And in the least you will be off because you didn't account for bark.
I recall reading some of what you're talking about. I know I did my own bush league test on poplar green vs dry, and ended up with a 55% of original green weight. It's also how I discovered that while sublimation is a thing, it's not much of a thing (in my case anyways).
There is a wide difference in the density of Elms and hence Btu's but alot of charts just say elm or maybe break out American elm.
I had forgotten you did that experiment. This isnt very scientific but I can pick up a piece of lodgeple and larch or birch and have them roughly the same size and be at the same mc and feel a notable difference in weight from the lighter pine. I had a bit of cotton wood 4 years ago and thought it was dry because it was so darn lite but when I stuck it with my meter it was 25%.
Thats why its fun to converse with like minded folks here. We are all into it just like you! I try to talk to my friends about this stuff and they just shake their heads!
When poplar is all you know, you get pretty good at knowing when it's ready. I think it was you I was discussing with, mountain ash and poplar, where the same size piece was 1.5 maybe 2 x heavier for ash, both bone dry.
Interesting thread. I have found that if it makes smoke it makes heat. As for btu's per cord I have found that when my wood gets low to my demand for heat, the 8 ply bias cord are much better and easier to scrounge than the 4 ply. When it comes to splitting, well, thats a story for another day.
