If you don't have one, get one! They can be had for under $20, even under $10. I got mine from Lowes for $19 plus change.
I see that moisture meters have two probes that stick into the wood. My guess is that an electrical potential is placed across the terminals and the meter measures the drop in that potential based on the resistance the wood presents to the current. This resistance is then translated into a percentage of moisture based on some empirical data. Is this a correct assessment?
This could actually be fun; I have not done any real research in some time. Although writing up lab reports were always a chore; which may be why I waited until 1 am on the night before the labs were due.
Exactly. A moisture meter is nothing more than an Ohm meter that reads out in something other than Ohms.
If this is what you really want to do, go for it. But remember, different species, different densities, different sizes, thickness, location and orientation of the probes, temperature of the wood as well as air temperature and relative humidity, even multiple readings from the same split may make the study more tedious than it needs to be. Your skill in the use of such a meter will also come into play. I have two multi-meters, one digital is about 30 years in age, and an analog which is about 20 years of age. On both, the probes are too weak to withstand the rigors of such testing. Your best bet for checking firewood moisture content is to purchase a moisture meter specifically designed for that purpose. The probes are not easily bent and are pointed to penetrate the wood to a degree. The more dense the wood, the less the penetration. These give a general idea as to the moisture content of the firewood, and your best readings are taken from a freshly split, split towards the middle. Burning firewood is not rocket science, and while it may not be necessary to test the moisture level of any of the firewood, especially firewood that has been seasoning for 3 years or better, one should periodically check with a device specific to checking moisture content in firewood. The key is to keep it simple. It doesn't need to be a complicated process! So the question is, do you want to spend all of your free time collecting data from the wood you intend to use as firewood which could virtually take years to compile, or just cut, split and stack your wood so that it can start the seasoning process. Maybe even periodically check random pieces of firewood to see the progression with a moisture meter for checking firewood. There is also a searchable chart on this site under "Resources" that will give you an idea of drying times for specific wood that may come in handy, especially for those new to wood burning like yourself. But like I said at the beginning, if this is what you really want to do (making more work for yourself than is necessary) then go for it.
Wow... A lot of interesting reading.... That's why I love this place.... As far as me... I gave up on stacking in rows. I stack on pavers with skids on top and then form cubes or long lines (three rows per stack or pretty close to that). Then top cover by Septemberish before the wet season. If I want wood to dry ultra fast I stack them on skids in my valley where it gets both sun and wind. It'll be dry by fall. But quantity wise I'm limited on that, so that's like my shoulder wood. But the big push to get to 3 year mark is the hardest. Once there it's up to how much further you want to go or space is available. But most of all have fun, otherwise it's called work....
Moisture meters would seem to be interesting devices. Water itself does not conduct electricity; it is the ions dissolved in the water that conducts the electricity. On a freshly cut tree, the moisture is from sap. Sap is comprised of sugars, hormones, and minerals the tree produces to provide fuel for the tree. Since the sap is different in different trees the meters would seem to need to be calibrated to the particular species.
Actually, there have been studies on this by hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, so I'm curious as to why you as a scientist would want to cover material that has been covered extensively. But for your enjoyment, here is a document of one such partial study: http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr06.pdf By the way, we are all scientists here to a degree.
Unmitigated nanny state approach. If I choose not to buy and use a moisture meter, that is my business, not the business of the govmint.
We kinda' like the holz hausen's around here (my house)- German for 'round house'. Once you get the hang of it, I think it is by far the easiest, fastest and most rugged way to stack firewood in our opinion and experience. The key is that they are basically nothing more than a loose pile of wood with an outer ring of stacked splits to hold it all together. So you just make one circle of angled splits (all low on the inside), then toss loose wood into the ring until the pile is about twice as high as the outer ring; then step into / onto the pile and stack some of the loose splits around the periphery of the pile and keep going. Very fast to build. The first ones we build had all the splits in the center standing on end but that took a long time to assemble and we did not find any advantage in how fast the wood seasoned. Breaking them down is also easy- just start in from one side and work the hausen down at about a 30 degree angle- what is left will not fall or collapse. Brian
True, this is why the oversize beverage law fell through in NYC; plus the fact that one could just buy two. Just because you include a moisture meter in the stove sales does not automatically translate into the end user using the meter to check their wood. Plus, the stove manufactures would probably include the cheapest meter possible and charge a premium for it. Better to inform the end user and let them choose the meter they want.
I was not thinking of having a "centre" to the stack; just a circular stack of wood. I am more interested in building free standing stacks and this look like it could be quicker than my crisscross stacking.
