So far, not impressed.

This was the first year I've tried oak in my stove and I liked it. Have used it occasionally in the furnace over the years but no big runs of it and usually mixed. Coaling in a furnace seems to still put out heat. Prolly due to the forced draft . Frist row of wood in the furnace room this season is hard maple and oak. This will be prolly the largest run of it I've ever had.
If last nites burn is any indication of how a full load of oak will burn , I'll be glad I have whats in the heap down back. I put in about a half load of oak at 930ish last nite and at 430 I refired on coals . Still 68 in house and -2 outside !!!
Oak species ,soil conditions, and environment play a role in growth density. Maybe you had an inferior oak Butcher.

 

4 years, no way does it take that long here.

 

Nothing wrong with heating from the basement unless you cant get the heat upstairs which many people complain about.

 

Beech is not really all that much higher then Oak and White Ash, I have found when the BTU's are close on the chart its hard to tell a whole lot of difference in burning wood, other conditions (drying time ect.) could come into play making one a favorite over another.
The one wood I have a big problem with on the BTU charts is Mulberry, it just does not live up to where it's rated.

 

Pretty much how my layout, minus the office, and heating system setup works. Add a couple degrees and thats where I'm at temp wise.

 

Burning oak right now, 3 deg. this AM. Plenty of deep coals be going for hours. Easy relight!

 

Methadone for woodstoves?

 

I love Oak. In our last house that was all we burnt due to a mega score. For two years I had half a dozen oak splits underneath the stove for decorative purposes. When we came to burn them I imagine that the moisture content was as close to zero as it's possible to get (think 12 months kiln drying with good ventilation around the wood). Well the stove got so hot we had to vacate the room for the duration as the heat output was like nothing I've ever known. This was a real epiphany for me about the relationship between moisture content and heat output in practical terms

PS Happy New Year to you all

 

My rule of thumb for hardwood:

Trees with thorns burn the best...trees with fruit and nuts are the next best...then there's everything else.

 

Same here, 2 for white and a little more for red. But I'm on a 4 year + rotation so I don't care.

What I like about oak is it doesn't leave as much ash compared to most of what I burn. I also believe that the btu's of wood very from where it's grown.

My preferred list of wood based off btu. I've only burned 1 shagbark tree and it was on its way south. So I'm assuming it wasn't a good indicator because it was like burning walnut.

1 hedge
2 honey locust
3 mullbery
4 white oak
5 ash
6 red oak

 

I think you are comparing a good hardwood (oak) against other good, and a couple of great, hardwoods (ash, and some hard maple if that is what you have). No big surprise that you were not bowled over by it.

I think perhaps the perception is different in different areas of the country; I am in RI, southern New England, and basically there are only three types of firewood in abundance: red oak, silver and red maple and pine. Of course pine is not a viable, competitive choice when compared with hardwoods. But the maple available here is about 1/2 the weight of the oak, and while it is technically a hardwood, it is extremely light (low density). So when looking for firewood, there is basically oak and 'the others' and the others are not a good choice. Sure there is elm, locust and hard maple around here but again, not usually enough that we can put up any real amount in firewood. Elm is available too but not all that common and that stuff is the original "Split- Not" brand of wood (I think the grain is woven by the Keebler elves when they are done making cookies). Add to all of that that oak is fairly easy to cut, very easy to split and it really does become our premium firewood [in this area]. If I had access to locust or ash, I would probably step around oak to get to that stuff but while there is the occasional tree, it is just not plentiful enough to use routinely for firewood.

Another big advantage oak has for me is that I can always tell oak- unlike some of you more knowledgeable folks, I just cannot tell different species of wood that has been cut and split apart. But it is always easy to spot oak, and that is a big plus when buying wood 'cause "100% hardwood, mostly oak" is sometimes really mostly pest maple.

So they tell me, there was a locust farm not too far from here many years ago that was about flattened in the hurricane of 1938. My mothers' uncle grabbed all he could and did not use any other fuel for four years.... and he spoke highly of the stuff and also mentioned the disappointment going back to..... oak.

Brian

 

The match madness was fun, but it was more of a popularity contest than an actual face cord off.

 

My fires have always shown that beech is substantially better firewood than oak, even white, and better than sugar maple, but not as nice as ironwood or shag. I throw out btu charts that are outliers.


Mulberry, we've got a little, but I don't think I've ever burned it. Not knowingly at least, so I won't comment on mulberry.

 

True, but funny. Me, I love elm. It's great firewood and even though it's hydro split only, it's usually straight and eat to stack, and clean due to not having bark by the time I cut it.

 

Yep had a whole winters worth last year minus 3/4 cord of not quite ready red oak I mixed in with it in the coldest months. It was the driest wood I could find cause the bark had been missing for quite some time. It was stringy (yard trees and wood lot perimeter trees) but burned great. Definitely needed the hydro splitter for it! Its better than oak!! (wet oak that is)

I've got roughly 7 cord of red oak out of 12 all free and mostly came from the same CL add I found. Still more to go after once I find some more time! So I guess I'm burning it whether its good or not! Keeps my house a toasty 72-74ish for the most part. And holds enough coals in a 2 cu ft stove for a relight off those coals 11 hrs later!!

 

I got into a big jag of Beech about five years ago. It burns fine, but doesn't coal as well as white oak. For a hand splitter it's a very schizophrenic wood: Some rounds pop open, others that have no obvious knots will have a wave pattern in them that rivals Sweet Gum and will wear you out. Beech doesn't stack all that nicely either. If I have my choice I take White Oak over Beech every time. Splits better, stacks nicer, and coals better.

I have no idea why people need four years to dry oak. That's amazing. It should be good-to-go after two. I'm burning some from a Hurricane Sandy three-cord tree right now (October 2012) and it's prime.

 

I have to buy my wood every year and even though some is dry (MM tested), some not so much. I do get a few oak pieces (sopping wet) as well that, as everyone knows, is a PITA to burn. However, this year, I got oak that must have been dead standing, as it burned very well (and hot). In my case (beggars can't be choosers category) I use what I get, but it was nice to see what oak can do when it is dry.