Today I finished splitting the last of the blocks I had cut last year. For at least 35 years I have cut my wood into 12 inch lenghts due to being used in a smaller stove. Later this month we will be getting a new stove and that one will be able to handle 16 inch pieces. Going forward from here, all my wood will be cut to 16 inches, except for the uglies. Now about that 3 year plan that is so popular here...I will have to wait for at least 3 years before i start burning the longer wood. With the new stove being more efficient the wait may be even longer Thanks guys
Yup, it will. At least it was cool today for the last of that splitting. Got some good oak and cherry.
Better too short than too long! I spent all last winter cutting 6" off all my splits due to running a smaller firebox that one is going down the road soon...back to a "right size" heater for this winter!
The joys of a pot bellied stove! There is another good point though, because of the smaller length wood, a person does not burn as many cords per year.
With a larger stove, you might be able to load your short wood, north/south. Pack it full for overnight.
How do ya figure this? X pounds of wood equals X BTUs. (more or less) If anything, smaller wood has more surface area per pound...and burns up quicker...
For sure you can experiment with loading the stove E/W or N/S or even standing the wood on the ends. Or perhaps load E/W and then put a log N/S on the end. You'll get it done but will be very happy when that short wood is used up.
With that stove it doesn't make any difference whether you are loading N/S or E/W. Inside firebox dimensions are the same either way. 2.2cf is the size.
It will make a difference in how it burns and how much you can pack into it. I cut my wood 12-13" to load NS in my Republic 1250i. The wood gets burning quicker and I can fill the whole box to the tubes.
Exactly! My pot bellied stove used blocks of wood 8 inches long on average. That is half the length of a typical stick of wood, yet my house is still well above the required 7oish degrees to keep us warm. That means I use half the amount of wood that I would if I used a bigger appliance that took longer sticks of wood. It would be the same consumption, ONLY if the longer sticks of wood heated my home to twice the temperature I do now, or the fire lasted twice as long. On the first point, my house is well above 70 degrees, so heating my home warmer then that is just a waste of wood. As for longevity of fire, my fires are not half the duration of long wood. The real question regarding stick length is CONVIENCE not the amount of consumption. It is a pain to cut small blocks of wood, split it, and try to pile it. But it does mean a person burns less wood overall. Is it worth it? For me...no. I have plenty of wood to burn and will never run out, but for those that buy it; they could go to a smaller appliance and burn shorter lengths of wood and save some money by burning less wood. It really depends on the heat loss of their home. If their house is always at 90 degrees, or they have to open the windows, they are over-producing heat; common place with wood heat. It would be the same regarding the duration of a fire. Mine burns from bedtime to wake-up most of the time. Last year we had 3 weeks of below zero temps here. There was a few nights at those super-low temperatures when I had to get up in the middle of the night to ensure it was recharged, but again that is a convenience thing, and not a consumption thing. The few nights I had to do that meant a few extra armloads of wood burned. Far better to get up a few times a year and do that then cut, split, stack cord after cord of wood that ends up being wasted when it is not super-cold. But do not get me wrong, if people do not want to fuss with short lengths of wood, I do not blame them one bit. It is a real pain, but that is convenience and not consumption.
By that logic, why not cut your wood to 4 inches and cut your consumption in half again? Or go 2 inches on your wood and burn 25% as much?
