[Greenbuilding] wood split or not, make a difference?

[Sacie Lambertson]

Further to this interesting conversation among those of us using wood to
heat our homes, I've often wondered about the value of splitting wood,
whether it burns differently.  Any thoughts on this?

When we fell trees we use most of the obvious potential wood burning sized
pieces, which means we cut a lot of logs that need no splitting.  Because
we're interested in improving our land, we cut a fair bit of wood and are
always a good two years ahead of the burning game, so there is plenty of
time for the logs, split or not, to dry out.  We keep what we currently use
and at least another near cord covered on top.

When we built our cabin to live in while we were building the house, we too
had a neat window and box that opened to the outside and to the inside.
We've since converted that to a narrow shed that in the summer serves as a
walk way to another nearby sleeping building.  That shed now holds all the
wood that is needed to warm the cabin in the winter. A good system.

I like burning full, unsplit logs because they seem to burn longer.  Our
stove takes does not hold a lot of wood and these must be 16-18 inches in
length for easy filling; four logs 4-5" in diameter is the most it will
hold.  The stove is covered with a ceramic shield on the outside so holds
heat for a long time.  We use fans high up to help distribute the heat; find
we can pretty successfully warm large spaces except when it is really cold
outside and there's no sun.  All of these terms require definition I know,
but you get the idea.

Still wondering about split versus non-split and if there is a difference in
the heat produced.  Wood is wood is it not?  Maybe the burn temps are
entirely dependent on the species, not the fact it is split or not?

Sacie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101228/5593b4c8/attachment.html>