If given the same density of the wood between the two, if you made a stack of small rounds and a stack of the same size of large rounds, which stack would weigh more? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's all about how much empty space, voids, in the stack. I'd garner that there would be more voids with the larger rounds, but you'd need to do a lot of weighing or measuring of void space to determine this. Is this one of those pointless ACT tests?
Assuming the stacks are the same size and the density of all the wood is the same (and the lengths are all the same), the stack of wood which takes up the most volume will weigh more. So, the stack with less space between the pieces will probably be heavier as others have noted.
Pure guess. The larger rounds would weigh heavier. Due to the water weight retained inside the “deeper” center mass. That is only a SWAG though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly the same. Although the individual air spaces might be larger the ratio between solid and air space will be identical.
the small one because u can fit more into to reach the same height as the larger blocks plus id bet there would be smaller gaps in the smaller pile
small ones. When I was a kid we would go big woodin. cut only big rounds because it was less wood and faster when selling a cord. Of course flatlanders would get mad once they split and stacked.
To correctly answer this question, you would need to get more specific and actually determine the exact diameter of both sizes of wood. Then count the number of rounds for each size, figure the area of the bigs and smalls and whichever one totaled the largest area would be the heavier stack. Stack size might make a difference. As an example if you had a 4 ft x 8 ft stack and the big rounds were 2 ft x 2 ft your stack would only hold a max of 8 rounds, but if you let the rounds rest in the valleys of the bottom row, your stack would only hold 7 rounds total to stay inside of the 4 ft x 8 ft area. And lets assume the small rounds were only 6 inches in diameter, that would be 128 rounds if the rounds did not rest the valleys of the different layers. But lets assume the small rounds did lay in the valleys of the row below, then it get more complicated as the first row would have 16 rounds in it, but the next row would have only 15 rounds in it, next 16, 4th row 15, 5 th row 16, 6th row 15, 7th row 16, 8th row 15, but to complicate it more, because the valleys lower the heights of the additional rows, you are probably going to gain a row at least, and the 9th row would have 16 in it. I don't think you would be able to get a 10th row and stay under 4 ft high as you would only loose an inch for each row, by using the valleys. With 9 rows that would be 140 rounds. That's a gain of 12 rounds. So, as you can see, using the valleys renders 1 less then not using the valleys on the big rolls, but but gains you 12 more on the small rounds vs. not using the valleys. Area of the big rounds is 452.16 sq inches x 8 rounds = 3,617.28 sq inches of area. Area of the small rounds is 28.26 sq inches x 140 = 3,956.4 sq inches So, unless I made a mistake in my calculations the small rounds would gain you 339.12 sq inches and the smaller round stack would of course be heavier, given the same wood density. Small rounds win! And the win would be even bigger for the small rounds if you let the top row of the big rounds roll into the valleys, loosing one round on the top row, to stay inside 4 ft x 8 ft. This was an extreme example, and if the sizes were closer together, it might go the other way. One would have to do the math for each example, I think.
So, basically as I said, one of those pointless ACT tests. The answer is that the two stacks will weigh nearly the same. Or close enough that it won't matter.
The same. A cord of 4" oak rounds has the same weight as a cord of 10" oak rounds. My post showing the math: Weight of a Cord of Rounds The more interesting issue is "does a cord of mixed rounds weigh more than a cord of one size?" I suspect a mixed round cord would be a little more dense than a cord of only one size round.
Just a math exercise. There is a difference, but in real life, I can't see where it's going to matter much. Especially when it comes to wood because wood density is always going to vary.
The smaller the round or split, the less air. The same reason 10 cords of logs only yields 8.5-9 cords of css firewood
My money is on the large ones. I can have an armload if the branches, and it never seems as heavy as a big piece of trunk from the same tree.
