Will_H , no offense but what exactly is going on in that picture? Its not piled but not stacked like I've ever seen before. Looks mostly cribbed.
I never upgraded to 8.1 , it was on this notebook when I bought it. I had no idea the agrivation I was gonna get myself into. I have a regular computer with windows xp pro and most likely will use that to upload pics from now on.
Well it's cribbed more than stacked . All new splits and i want max air and sun to maximize seasoning/curing.I do top cover when threats of rain occur.
Back in the day, in the Garden of Eden, wood stacks didn't need to be covered..... HOWEVER! As soon as Eve ate that apple, EVERYTHING had to be covered up
I did the experiment a few years ago with a double stack of white oak not top covered. Here with our rain & climate a year wrecked the bark and sapwood and probably kept the heartwood from drying as well. Those stacks are now top covered with rubber roofing, lesson learned. Those folks who do not needto cover because their climate allows naked stacks are fortunate.
I burned a bunch of red oak last winter with punk on the outside , some was 1 1/2 thick , but it burned perfectly cuz I top covered it when it was stacked 11 1/2" off the ground , nothing fancy just tarps. That kind of wood will soak water up like a sponge, and more punk will form if not kept dry. I learned my lesson on FHC before I processed the wood Thanks Backwoods Savage
My bro lives in s Colo. It's so dry there they don't have to put anything on their log home's siding to preserve them. (Unheard of in Maine with all the moisture.) Uncovered firewood in Colo, no prob. But, he even has built 2 nice woodsheds. Totally agree with those saying location is everything. Open, sunny, dry, windy areas... might not need top cover. Here in Maine... if you want dry wood, gotta cover it somehow. Pretty good example is right down in our woods. There are many old stacks of firewood the previous owner had cut years ago and left uncovered. You couldn't burn one stick of any of it in a firepit much less a stove. Totally rotten.
White oak doesn't do well not being top covered up here either, red oak fared better but the bark makes a mess. I always top cover now after one season open, I cover before the leaves fall and leave it that way.
I cover top only as I really dont know how long they might sit there. Sometimes it's gone by fall in sauna, firepit, stove, or to friends and other times I may have stacks for years. I reuse my covers so it doesnt really matter. This year my new stacks are uncovered as I have a big pile of maple that is really dry so there's no risk of running out of seasoned wood unless I end up holed up in my cabin all winter and need to run the stove continuously.
I don't top cover. But I get a lot of sun on my stacks and wind. I single row stack with plenty of room between stacks. I will cover before winter though
Should mention that I cover stacks that will be used that winter as I hate when the top layers get full of ice if you get rain or wet snow to start the season.
Some time ago I posted about an experiment. I kept reading about folks who claim not covering is as good as covering. So, because I had not left wood uncovered for a long, long, long, time, I decided one year to split and stack then forget. Poor experiment. Oh, the wood burned okay and none rotted. But the biggest point is that the wood did not burn as well, or I should say we did not get the amount of heat that we normally get and I think we got more ashes. So the above picture is part of the experiment. One offshoot of the experiment that I did not expect was that the wood piles turned out terrible. As you can see, they are not neat, although they were when originally stacked. Why? I don't really know, but really had to laugh when Fire Chief Steve was here one day and saw those stacks. He ran to them to get pictures! He could not believe he'd find something so terrible here. lol So in my book, leaving the wood uncovered is fine if that is what you want to do. For us, we'll top cover because it gives us better fuel, the stacks will stay looking better and the wood is a lot nicer to handle when ready for the stove. In addition, we don't have to be concerned with rotting wood even if we happen to leave some wood stacked a few extra years. In the picture below, some of that wood did not get burned until in the stack 7 or 8 years. It was wonderful fuel. The bad part was that some of it was covered with tarps because I did not have enough old roofing at the time, but the wood was still fine.
As you can see, they are not neat, although they were when originally stacked. Why? Backwoods Savage Good question. I wonder if it has to do with the expansion/contraction of the getting wet/drying out cycles?
I stack in a "cube". Each individual stack is 10' long, 7' high in the center, an 6' high at the ends. There are anywhere from 12 to 15 stacks in the cube and each stack is about 6" from the next. When the leaves start to fall I top cover with heavy duty tarps. The high centers lets the rain & melting snow run off. The top covering also keeps all the debris & snow out from between the stacks. The top covering and debris free gaps allow some airflow between the stacks all year round. From June to October I remove the top covers... This method works very well for me, the wood does not get punky and stays dry/ready to burn. KaptJaq
