Tractors and wood! Show your pics

[John_Mc]

It’s nuts what some homes are capable of energy efficiency wise but it is definitely the way to go.

If you are using traditional methods of measuring cordage, you’d be correct.
I learned a long time ago that this would be a falsehood of actual wood volume and is why l said it was less. Just a guess of how less on my part but maybe too less. I should have said more like a cord and 3/4’s.
I’ve always measured out to 10 ft instead of the 8 for stack length to account for air space.

The definition of a cord is 128 cubic feet of stacked wood (4'x4'x8'). The definition already includes the allowance for the fact that there is air space in the stack. It does not claim to be 128 cubic feet of solid wood. Some states also include a definition of a "thrown in" pile of wood to account for the fact that wood loosely thrown in rather than stacked has more air space.

A rough rule of thumb is that a cord of split and stacked firewood is about 70% wood and 30% air. Obviously this varies depending on how straight/smooth the wood is. What may be counter-intuitive is that the smaller the splits, the more air space in the cord.

 

[Jstpssng]

I’ve always measured out to 10 ft instead of the 8 for stack length to account for air space.

128 cubic feet already accounts for air space. A cord of hardwood is actually about 85 feet of solid wood, whereas a cord of softwood is about 96 feet.

The unit of measurement wasn't created for firewood; rather, it was developed in the early days of cutting pulpwood when they were cutting by hand, everything was cut in 4 foot sections and they were paid for what they produced. It took a lot of work to come up with those numbers... measure a tree, cut it up into 4 foot sections, measure diameter of large and small ends then run it through a computer
slide rule to calculate the volume.

Edit: I should have turned the page as the above has already been explained.

 

[arrow]

128 cubic feet already accounts for air space. A cord of hardwood is actually about 85 feet of solid wood, whereas a cord of softwood is about 96 feet.

The unit of measurement wasn't created for firewood; rather, it was developed in the early days of cutting pulpwood when they were cutting by hand, everything was cut in 4 foot sections and they were paid for what they produced. It took a lot of work to come up with those numbers... measure a tree, cut it up into 4 foot sections, measure diameter of large and small ends then run it through a computer
slide rule to calculate the volume.

Edit: I should have turned the page as the above has already been explained.

That’s ok jst. Believe me,
It ain’t something keeping me up at night.

 

[Gordon Gould]

To hot this afternoon so I spent some time watching some firewood videos. The splitter in this one had a fixed wedge and an extra arm on the ram that pulled the piece back for resplitting on the return stroke. I have not seen one like that before. Saves a lot of work not having to pull the piece back by hand.

Can see it work at 5:40 and 8:43

gg

 

[Sawyer Rob]

On my splitter, I don't lift or pull anything back, even on bigger pieces like this,

Instead I reach for the edge of the piece furthest away, and after it going through the 4-way wedge, I "flip it over" right back onto the splitters beam.

It's much easier doing it this way, it's faster and saves you a lot of work too, not having to lift the whole piece or pull the whole piece back.

It really saves my back...

SR

 

[John_Mc]

On my splitter, I don't lift or pull anything back, even on bigger pieces like this,



Instead I reach for the edge of the piece furthest away, and after it going through the 4-way wedge, I "flip it over" right back onto the splitters beam.

It's much easier doing it this way, it's faster and saves you a lot of work too, not having to lift the whole piece or pull the whole piece back.

It really saves my back...

SR

I do some flipping back myself, but really want to redesign my work table to allow me to just slide it back.

To hot this afternoon so I spent some time watching some firewood videos. The splitter in this one had a fixed wedge and an extra arm on the ram that pulled the piece back for resplitting on the return stroke. I have not seen one like that before. Saves a lot of work not having to pull the piece back by hand.

Can see it work at 5:40 and 8:43

gg

I just recently saw a video of one set up with a "wing" on either side of the ram-mounted pusher plate that rode along with the ram. When the log split, the two halves ended up on the wings, and rode back for re-splitting. I thought it was an interesting idea, but it seemed like a bit of a pain for wood that did not need to be resplit. it also negated what I think is a significant advantage of moving anvil/fixed wedge splitters: the pusher can push the blocks right off the end and in to my trailer.

 

[goeduck]

128 cubic feet already accounts for air space. A cord of hardwood is actually about 85 feet of solid wood, whereas a cord of softwood is about 96 feet.

The unit of measurement wasn't created for firewood; rather, it was developed in the early days of cutting pulpwood when they were cutting by hand, everything was cut in 4 foot sections and they were paid for what they produced. It took a lot of work to come up with those numbers... measure a tree, cut it up into 4 foot sections, measure diameter of large and small ends then run it through a computer
slide rule to calculate the volume.

Edit: I should have turned the page as the above has already been explained.

I fed my share of those 4-foot sections into grinders at a local pulp mill where I grew up. That pulp mill made yellow pages paper back in the day for phone books, maybe white page paper, I don't recall. Each grinder had 3 presses to grind the wood against a huge stone wheel. Some operators jammed the presses, so the wood bound up and they did not have to feed wood. Not me, I kept them going full tilt. The wood came out of the log ponds, so it was WET and heavy. I never slept better in my life after those shifts.

 

[DarkBlack]

Around here we have Hophornbeam
We also have a lot of American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) which is only slightly lower than Sugar Maple in BTU content, but a good firewood choice: Lower moisture content when green (the only common tree in our area with a lower green moisture content is Ash,

There’s a lot of wood species BTU charts out there on the net and in books. The majority that I have seen, rate beech at the same, or slightly higher BTU content than sugar maple.

I cut a lot in the winter, and have red and swamp maple in addition to sugar. Without the leaves I don’t differentiate. But I do have a lot of beech. The beech is my preferred wood that I have

 

[shooterdon]

I am cheap and when burning for my own use, I am not too particular about the type of tree I process into firewood. If the price is right, or free, it gets used. I will even burn pine.

But for my business, I only process hardwoods.

 

[John_Mc]

There’s a lot of wood species BTU charts out there on the net and in books. The majority that I have seen, rate beech at the same, or slightly higher BTU content than sugar maple.

I cut a lot in the winter, and have red and swamp maple in addition to sugar. Without the leaves I don’t differentiate. But I do have a lot of beech. The beech is my preferred wood that I have

I've seen a bunch of the charts, and have several saved on my computer. one problem with many of them is that they have pulled together data from several sources, not all of which use the same testing methods or conditions. I've attached one of the better charts I've come across. (I received permission from the author years ago to post it, as long as I kept their identifying info on the document.)

They rank Sugar Maple as slightly higher than American Beech. In practice, I can't tell the difference. I suspect that natural variation from tree to tree within a species or minor differences in moisture content and/or how someone operates heir wood stove makes a bigger difference.

I actually like Beech a bit better as firewood: it starts off with lower moisture content, and takes less time to fully season. It also does not have a lot of commercial value, so I'm not giving up something which might have other uses (though it's a great tree for wildlife).