If wood - pound for pound- has roughly equivalent values ,<br><br> why are we not planting and coppicing willow groves with which to heat? Seems to me that this rapidly renewable wood would burn hot (ideal for masonry heaters) and give more btu's per acre given it's rapid growth?<br>
<br>what am I not getting?<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 3:00 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:greenbuilding-request@lists.bioenergylists.org">greenbuilding-request@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Send Greenbuilding mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org">greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:greenbuilding-request@lists.bioenergylists.org">greenbuilding-request@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:greenbuilding-owner@lists.bioenergylists.org">greenbuilding-owner@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Greenbuilding digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. heating values of different species of wood (Reuben Deumling)<br>
2. Re: heating values of different species of wood (Sacie Lambertson)<br>
3. Re: heating values of different species of wood (Reuben Deumling)<br>
4. Re: heating values of different species of wood (Sacie Lambertson)<br>
5. Re: heating values of different species of wood (Corwyn)<br>
6. Re: heating values of different species of wood (Norbert Senf)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:40:55 -0800<br>
From: Reuben Deumling <<a href="mailto:9watts@gmail.com">9watts@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Greenbuilding <<a href="mailto:greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org">greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>>, Norbert<br>
Senf <<a href="mailto:mheat@mha-net.org">mheat@mha-net.org</a>>, Corwyn <<a href="mailto:corwyn@midcoast.com">corwyn@midcoast.com</a>><br>
Subject: [Greenbuilding] heating values of different species of wood<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<AANLkTinb9uENHDpChDv-k7z=5LQoDKL+9YeR=<a href="mailto:k02a4HG@mail.gmail.com">k02a4HG@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
I stumbled upon this<br>
<a href="http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-combustion-heat-d_372.html" target="_blank">http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-combustion-heat-d_372.html</a><br>
and wondered if anyone here can offer an opinion about how good these<br>
numbers are. I compared cherry and white oak on this chart (the two species<br>
I tend to burn), and noticed that the ratio of the two species dry<br>
weight/volume is the same as the ratio of their BTU/volume.<br>
Does that mean a lb of cellulose regardless of species is assumed to have a<br>
(more or less fixed) heating value? I could imagine that but hadn't<br>
encountered this before. It would make certain calculations easier...<br>
<br>
paging Norbert Senf...<br>
paging Corwyn<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Reuben Deumling<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101222/a6e9ceca/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101222/a6e9ceca/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:07:16 -0600<br>
From: Sacie Lambertson <<a href="mailto:sacie.lambertson@gmail.com">sacie.lambertson@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org">greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:dfl@ku.edu">dfl@ku.edu</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] heating values of different species of<br>
wood<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:AANLkTimqDRRWma63dMcgU9YPBLKDsRm2HakoDcevMOfu@mail.gmail.com">AANLkTimqDRRWma63dMcgU9YPBLKDsRm2HakoDcevMOfu@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
Reuben, this is a wonderfully interest table, particularly so at this time<br>
of the year when we are burning wood.<br>
<br>
The heat value of particular species bears out our observation that the<br>
Osage Orange we prefer to burn produces among the highest heat among the<br>
woods. Interesting that Pinion Pine which doesn't grow in Kansas, burns the<br>
hottest of all.<br>
<br>
What is the difference between heat value and recoverable heat value?<br>
<br>
Wonder why the values of some species aren't included in the table (probably<br>
not measured?)<br>
<br>
Thanks for sharing, Sacie<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Reuben Deumling <<a href="mailto:9watts@gmail.com">9watts@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
*<br>
><br>
> *I stumbled upon this<br>
> <a href="http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-combustion-heat-d_372.html" target="_blank">http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-combustion-heat-d_372.html</a><br>
> and wondered if anyone here can offer an opinion about how good these<br>
> numbers are*<br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101222/9d697360/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101222/9d697360/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 09:19:45 -0800<br>
From: Reuben Deumling <<a href="mailto:9watts@gmail.com">9watts@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: "Environmentally-preferable design, construction, building<br>
elements" <<a href="mailto:greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org">greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:dfl@ku.edu">dfl@ku.edu</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] heating values of different species of<br>
wood<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<AANLkTikRMPPd2wqc4ieskezCRpKZS6VbGArTcN1=<a href="mailto:T8mJ@mail.gmail.com">T8mJ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Sacie Lambertson <<br>
<a href="mailto:sacie.lambertson@gmail.com">sacie.lambertson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Reuben, this is a wonderfully interest table, particularly so at this time<br>
> of the year when we are burning wood.<br>
><br>
> The heat value of particular species bears out our observation that the<br>
> Osage Orange we prefer to burn produces among the highest heat among the<br>
> woods. Interesting that Pinion Pine which doesn't grow in Kansas, burns the<br>
> hottest of all.<br>
><br>
I noticed that Douglas fir (a softwood to be sure) is here reported to have<br>
a higher heat content than white oak, which seemed absurd. Fir may burn hot,<br>
but in my understanding this does not mean that you'll get more BTUs per<br>
pound...<br>
<br>
><br>
> What is the difference between heat value and recoverable heat value?<br>
><br>
I wondered that too. Then I saw this note at the bottom:<br>
"Recoverable heat values are calculated with a stove efficiency of<br>
approximately 65%."<br>
<br>
><br>
> Wonder why the values of some species aren't included in the table<br>
> (probably not measured?)<br>
><br>
<br>
Here's another version (the main difference being that the* BTUs per<br>
cord *column<br>
here is = to the *recoverable BTUs *column in the first chart I linked to):<br>
<a href="http://hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/heating_value_wood" target="_blank">http://hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/heating_value_wood</a><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101222/d189d10e/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101222/d189d10e/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:59:44 -0600<br>
From: Sacie Lambertson <<a href="mailto:sacie.lambertson@gmail.com">sacie.lambertson@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org">greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] heating values of different species of<br>
wood<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<AANLkTikQ18Rov-Vd_qmOYb+-kqbRbrqq94uVtksna=<a href="mailto:ao@mail.gmail.com">ao@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
But this still doesn't answer the question about the difference does it?<br>
Sacie<br>
<br>
><br>
>> *What is the difference between heat value and recoverable heat value?<br>
>> *<br>
><br>
> * *<br>
<br>
> *I wondered that too. Then I saw this note at the bottom:<br>
> "Recoverable heat values are calculated with a stove efficiency of<br>
> approximately 65%."*<br>
><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101222/2c3b8e70/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101222/2c3b8e70/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:07:40 -0500<br>
From: Corwyn <<a href="mailto:corwyn@midcoast.com">corwyn@midcoast.com</a>><br>
To: Reuben Deumling <<a href="mailto:9watts@gmail.com">9watts@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: Greenbuilding <<a href="mailto:greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org">greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] heating values of different species of<br>
wood<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4D124C7C.7010608@midcoast.com">4D124C7C.7010608@midcoast.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br>
<br>
On 12/22/2010 11:40 AM, Reuben Deumling wrote:<br>
> I stumbled upon this<br>
> <a href="http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-combustion-heat-d_372.html" target="_blank">http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-combustion-heat-d_372.html</a><br>
> and wondered if anyone here can offer an opinion about how good these<br>
> numbers are. I compared cherry and white oak on this chart (the two<br>
> species I tend to burn), and noticed that the ratio of the two species<br>
> dry weight/volume is the same as the ratio of their BTU/volume.<br>
> Does that mean a lb of cellulose regardless of species is assumed to<br>
> have a (more or less fixed) heating value? I could imagine that but<br>
> hadn't encountered this before. It would make certain calculations easier...<br>
><br>
> paging Norbert Senf...<br>
> paging Corwyn<br>
<br>
Yup.<br>
<br>
Around 8600 BTUs / Pound (@ 15% moisture)<br>
<br>
Thank You Kindly,<br>
<br>
Corwyn<br>
<br>
--<br>
Topher Belknap<br>
Green Fret Consulting<br>
Kermit didn't know the half of it...<br>
<a href="http://www.greenfret.com/" target="_blank">http://www.greenfret.com/</a><br>
<a href="mailto:topher@greenfret.com">topher@greenfret.com</a><br>
(207) 882-7652<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:36:46 -0500<br>
From: Norbert Senf <<a href="mailto:mheat@mha-net.org">mheat@mha-net.org</a>><br>
To: Reuben Deumling <<a href="mailto:9watts@gmail.com">9watts@gmail.com</a>>, Greenbuilding<br>
<<a href="mailto:greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org">greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] heating values of different species of<br>
wood<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:201012221937.oBMJb4d7015057@mail42.atl.registeredsite.com">201012221937.oBMJb4d7015057@mail42.atl.registeredsite.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed<br>
<br>
Hi Reuben:<br>
<br>
Yes, pound for pound wood has just about equal<br>
BTU content. The softwoods sometimes are slightly<br>
higher per pound, because of the resin content.<br>
The "higher heating value" of 0% moisture wood is<br>
about 8,500 BTU/lb. For 20% moisture wood, it is about 6,800 BTU/lb.<br>
<br>
<br>
It looks like they calculated the recoverable<br>
heat value by taking the heat value of air dried<br>
wood (20% moisture), and multiplying by 65%<br>
efficiency, which is a reasonable value for a modern stove.<br>
<br>
Best ........ Norbert<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 08:40 AM 12/22/2010 -0800, Reuben Deumling wrote:<br>
>I stumbled upon this<br>
><<a href="http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-combustion-heat-d_372.html" target="_blank">http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-combustion-heat-d_372.html</a>><a href="http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-combustion-heat-d_372.html" target="_blank">http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-combustion-heat-d_372.html</a><br>
>and wondered if anyone here can offer an opinion<br>
>about how good these numbers are. I compared<br>
>cherry and white oak on this chart (the two<br>
>species I tend to burn), and noticed that the<br>
>ratio of the two species dry weight/volume is<br>
>the same as the ratio of their BTU/volume.<br>
>Does that mean a lb of cellulose regardless of<br>
>species is assumed to have a (more or less<br>
>fixed) heating value? I could imagine that but<br>
>hadn't encountered this before. It would make certain calculations easier...<br>
><br>
>paging Norbert Senf...<br>
>paging Corwyn<br>
><br>
>Thanks,<br>
><br>
>Reuben Deumling<br>
<br>
-------------------------------------------<br>
Norbert Senf---------- mheat(at)<a href="http://heatkit.com" target="_blank">heatkit.com</a><br>
Masonry Stove Builders<br>
25 Brouse Rd.<br>
RR 5, Shawville------- <a href="http://www.heatkit.com" target="_blank">www.heatkit.com</a><br>
Qu?bec J0X 2Y0-------- fax:-----819.647.6082<br>
---------------------- voice:---819.647.5092<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Greenbuilding mailing list<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
End of Greenbuilding Digest, Vol 4, Issue 18<br>
********************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Cheers,<br>Joshua Thornton <br>Founder/Director <a href="http://naturalbuild.ca">naturalbuild.ca</a><br>519 387 8787<br><a href="mailto:info@naturalbuild.ca">info@naturalbuild.ca</a><br>
<div style="visibility: hidden; display: inline;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup"></div><style type="text/css">#avg_ls_inline_popup { position:absolute; z-index:9999; padding: 0px 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 240px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 13px;}</style>