Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:21:42 -0600
Reply-To: Max Wellhouse <dimwittedmoose@CFU.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Max Wellhouse <dimwittedmoose@CFU.NET>
Subject: Re: Vanagon Winter Survival Kit Question
In-Reply-To: <19699068.34511.1257084088740.JavaMail.mcneely4@127.0.0.1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
When I'm burning pine, I only burn scrap kiln-dried 2x4" pine in my
wood burning stove while working on my Vanagon in the winter time in
my detached shop. I have a pretty much unlimited supply of it from a
pallet manufacturer in Waterloo. They occasionally give away scrap
oak as well. 3 winters now and NO CREOSOTE!! Enough of it will get
the flue thermometer up to 800 degrees right quickly. I was always
under the impression that the cooler smoldering fires were the ones
that developed the creosote. problems. I was also told that exposed
metal flues with creosote(not chimneys) in them could be cleaned by
getting the firebox full of the dry 2x4's and get the flue temp in
the 800 range(not to where it gets glowing red on the
outside) After letting it cool, you simply tap the exposed flue
pipe with a thick screwdriver shank and listen for the sound of
falling creosote in the firebox. If you've got 90's in your flue,
you could have problems retrieving that however, but even 1 90 would
increase creosote production due to the exhaust not being able to
escape as quickly as it wants to.
YMMV
DM&FS
At 08:01 AM 11/1/2009, Dave Mcneely wrote:
>When you say, "ranks pine at the top," that ignores that there are
>multiple species of pine listed, and that the "top" ranking that you
>mention is for pitch pine by weight, not by volume. Pitch pine is a
>very poor wood for home heating, as it produces a lot of creosote (or
>pitch), and is thus dangerous. Pitch pine was one of the most abundant
>trees in the area where I lived in eastern Kentucky, but no one burned
>it for home heating. David
>
>
>On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Mike S wrote:
>
>>At 01:01 AM 11/1/2009, Rob wrote...
>>>Extra heat? That is the wood burning in addition to the wax.
>>
>>Hey, just like an artificial log! But, wax holds much more heat energy
>>than wood, so your claim doesn't make sense, since the one could just
>>use more wax in place of the wood. (paraffin ~= 20,000 BTU/lb, wood ~=
>>6,000)
>>
>>>All wood has the same energy?
>>
>>Pretty close, by weight.
>>
>>>Oh wow, think of all the time I spent messing with the oak rather
>>>than
>>>the aspen... See that was my problem, I thought I was getting more
>>>heat from the oak than I did from the softwoods all those years.
>>
>>I know what you mean. If you don't study or research things, and just
>>believe "old wive's tales," then you don't always make good choices.
>>Don't you wish you had found out sooner that aspen holds 14.7M
>>BTU/cord, weighs 2290 lbs/cord, and produces 6419 BTU/lb, while white
>>oak holds 25.7M BTU/cord, and weighs 4012 lbs/cord, which is 6405
>>BTU/lb? So, the difference is a full 0.2% in energy per pound. The US
>>Forest Service ranks pine at the top.
>>
>>Sources:
>>
>>http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/W/AE_wood_heat_value_BTU.html
>>
>>http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr29.pdf
|