Yew logs as firewood - will it be dry enough
David
I've been offered a bunch of yew trunks as firewood. I know they'll
spit a bit, but as they're going in a stove, not a problem.
However, they have been left as 6 foot trunks for the year they've
been in the dry. Is it likely that when I saw and split them into
useable log-sized logs that they will be dry enough to burn straight
away? Or will I be left with a lot of hissing, little heat and
nowhere to store the burnable stuff I'll have to buy anyway? I know
the standard advice is split and wait two years, but any experience
would be welcomed.
Incidentally, I know it's a shame to burn yew, but if the chap who has
them can't get interest from wood-turners/archers/wiccans, then that's
the way it'll have to go!
Thanks
David
Jonathan
I burnt a lot of year-old yew last winter in our wood burner. It had
been cut into small lengths and split. It burnt well and gave a good
heat. I would try some and see and save it for another year if it's
not dry enough (assuming you have the space to store it).
Jonathan
harry
Excellent stuff to burn is yew. The only problem is if you have the
stuff with lots of tiny knotts, it's hard to split. If the grain is
straight it's OK.
Tabby
I'd probably saw it into 2x2, 2x3, 2x4
NT
The Natural Philosopher
Odd. but they are no longer usable - you need to plank the wood within
weeks of cutting.
A year should be enough but cut and split as early as possible and
store in dry places if you can.
I've burnt almost green wood without much problem, especially in a stove.
Light with something a bit drier, and then just pile it in.
> Thanks
>
> David
Andrew Mawson
"David" <readt...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:7fa4158d-cf09-4680...@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
No it'll be absolutely useless and dangerous, but as a special favour,
for a small consideration I'll haul it away and dispose of it safely
for you <G>
AWEM
Jim K
wrote:
> I've burnt almost green wood without much problem, especially in a stove.
>
> Light with something a bit drier, and then just pile it in.
you are trolling/kidding in a ho ho lets subvert the newsgroups way -
right?
Jim K
harry
You're right he's acomplete fool. Firewood needs to be as dry as
possible before you use it. Very important.
The Natural Philosopher
No. I am telling the truth.
I have put fresh chainsawn logs on fires, and if they are not too big,
they will eventually dry out and catch and burn.
Do you dry out stuff before bonfiring it? No.
Stoves are better because they have a greater draught.
Do forests full of green wood fail to catch fire in a forest fire? No.
The downside is you lose some energy turning the water to steam, and the
lower temperature smoke may condense more soot.
But green wood will burn if you get it hot enough, and supply enough
energy to self sustain the reaction.
The Natural Philosopher
It is desirable harry, not needful.
You realise my function here is to bust myths that stupid people cling
to, and serious people may get misled by.
I know your firelighting skills only obtain to a gas barbecue once a
year, but some of us use extensive wood burning to keep warm in winter.
Its very hard to light a fire with green wood, but it is certainly not
impossible to keep one going with at least a reasonable percentage of
green wood, especially if the wood pieces are small and the wood type is
naturally heavy - i.e. less water, more wood. Yew falls into that
category. Poplar and willow do not.
Nevertheless, when they pulled down 25 poplars here, they managed to
burn the smaller branches and leaves in a huge bonfire a day after cutting.
I know you have a personal dislike of me because I keep showing you up,
but really harry, if you know fuck all, why don't you keep your mouth shut?
Steve Firth
> But green wood will burn if you get it hot enough, and supply enough
> energy to self sustain the reaction.
And it will also cause you considerable expense and inconvenience not to
mention danger when you realise just how much tar has been deposited in
your chimney.
Steve Firth
> You realise my function here is to bust myths that stupid people cling
> to, and serious people may get misled by.
Odd, because mostly you come across as a trolling crap merchant. As for
example with your advice to use water-based acrylic sealant for car
repairs. And your fuckwitted comment on just about anything to do with
chemistry.
Jim K
wrote:
> No. I am telling the truth.
as you understand it so far, maybe...
> I have put fresh chainsawn logs on fires, and if they are not too big,
> they will eventually dry out and catch and burn.
er yes but you don;t really *want* all that sh1t up your **stove's**
chimney/liner walls do you?
> Do you dry out stuff before bonfiring it? No.
if you want to ligt it easily and get rid of all of it including the
thicker bits - it helps. Also the Enviro Elfs seem keen that household
bonfires should be burning "dry" garden waste....
> Do forests full of green wood fail to catch fire in a forest fire? No.
but the question is not as obviously simple as "will it burn"....
> The downside is you lose some energy turning the water to steam, and the
> lower temperature smoke may condense more soot.
mmmm and fur up your chimney/liner with flammable corrosive tars -
good idea? ...er no...
> But green wood will burn if you get it hot enough, and supply enough
> energy to self sustain the reaction.
you've missed the point again.
Jim K
The Natural Philosopher
> On 26 Sep, 10:08, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> No. I am telling the truth.
>
> as you understand it so far, maybe...
>
>> I have put fresh chainsawn logs on fires, and if they are not too big,
>> they will eventually dry out and catch and burn.
>
> er yes but you don;t really *want* all that sh1t up your **stove's**
> chimney/liner walls do you?
if its an open fire it needs sweeping anyway.
If its a closed flue, it will get hot enough to boild teh sorts of the
rap off anyway.
>
>> Do you dry out stuff before bonfiring it? No.
>
> if you want to ligt it easily and get rid of all of it including the
> thicker bits - it helps. Also the Enviro Elfs seem keen that household
> bonfires should be burning "dry" garden waste....
>
It HELPS. its not ESSENTIAL. And wet wood dries fast in a hot fire.
>> Do forests full of green wood fail to catch fire in a forest fire? No.
>
> but the question is not as obviously simple as "will it burn"....
>
>> The downside is you lose some energy turning the water to steam, and the
>> lower temperature smoke may condense more soot.
>
> mmmm and fur up your chimney/liner with flammable corrosive tars -
> good idea? ...er no...
>
Not a lot more than you do anyway. Tars don't dry out in a year anyway.
>> But green wood will burn if you get it hot enough, and supply enough
>> energy to self sustain the reaction.
>
> you've missed the point again.
>
No, I haven't. Green wood burns. If what you want is to burn it, and
generate heat, it works almost as well.
> Jim K
dennis@home
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:i7n2hh$gki$1...@news.albasani.net...
> But green wood will burn if you get it hot enough, and supply enough
> energy to self sustain the reaction.
If its self sustaining you don't need to supply energy.
Maybe Steve is correct about TNP knowledge of chemistry (and everything
else).
harry
>
> - Show quoted text -
Before wood can burn, any moisture in it has to be evaporated off.
This takes energy that could more usefully heat your home. Up to half
ther available energy can be lost if the wood is wet. So the drier you
can make it, the better.
The steam keeps the chimney cold and also prevents the violatiles
(tars and creosote etc.) from burning. These are deposited in the
chimney.
If there's a big enough accumulation, they can catch fire and melt or
burn metal chimneys. They can cause masonary chimneys to split. Even
burn the house down.
The tar can't usually be dislodged by a brush, it has to be scraped
off. Usually the main accumulation is in the top couple of feet of the
chimney, I made mine removeable so I can deal with it.
It's a good idea to have a good blaze once a week to burn off any tar
in the chimney before there's enough to be dangerous. A pile of
newspapers is the thing.
Jim K
wrote:
> Jim K wrote:
> > On 26 Sep, 10:08, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> >> No. I am telling the truth.
>
> > as you understand it so far, maybe...
>
> >> I have put fresh chainsawn logs on fires, and if they are not too big,
> >> they will eventually dry out and catch and burn.
>
> > er yes but you don;t really *want* all that sh1t up your **stove's**
> > chimney/liner walls do you?
>
> if its an open fire it needs sweeping anyway.
I reckon yours will need it more than average before it catches fire/
poisons the upstairs with flue gases thru corrided mortar joints....
> > mmmm and fur up your chimney/liner with flammable corrosive tars -
> > good idea? ...er no...
>
> Not a lot more than you do anyway.
eh?
>Tars don't dry out in a year anyway.
so? the tars are what you want to burn when you burn the *dried* wood
- your ""burn" it green" method steams the tars out and sticks them to
the chimney/liner that's the whole Fing point.......
> > you've missed the point again.
>
> No, I haven't. Green wood burns. If what you want is to burn it, and
> generate heat, it works almost as well.
yes you have..... reading the OP he mentions *stove* therefore he
wants heat (and uses a chimney/liner) NOT the "disposal of green wood
in a bonfire" as you appear to have got yourself hung up on
Jim K
The Natural Philosopher
> On 26 Sep, 15:18, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Jim K wrote:
>>> On 26 Sep, 10:08, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> No. I am telling the truth.
>>> as you understand it so far, maybe...
>>>> I have put fresh chainsawn logs on fires, and if they are not too big,
>>>> they will eventually dry out and catch and burn.
>>> er yes but you don;t really *want* all that sh1t up your **stove's**
>>> chimney/liner walls do you?
>> if its an open fire it needs sweeping anyway.
>
> I reckon yours will need it more than average before it catches fire/
> poisons the upstairs with flue gases thru corrided mortar joints....
>
cant do. All interlocked fireclay ceramic sections..
Does need a sweep after ten years tho.
>>> mmmm and fur up your chimney/liner with flammable corrosive tars -
>>> good idea? ...er no...
>> Not a lot more than you do anyway.
>
> eh?
>
>> Tars don't dry out in a year anyway.
>
> so? the tars are what you want to burn when you burn the *dried* wood
> - your ""burn" it green" method steams the tars out and sticks them to
> the chimney/liner that's the whole Fing point.......
>
Er no, teh tars stay behind - they are not mostly volatile at low temps.
If they do vapourise, they burn.
>>> you've missed the point again.
>> No, I haven't. Green wood burns. If what you want is to burn it, and
>> generate heat, it works almost as well.
>
> yes you have..... reading the OP he mentions *stove* therefore he
> wants heat (and uses a chimney/liner) NOT the "disposal of green wood
> in a bonfire" as you appear to have got yourself hung up on
>
So bonfires don't generate heat on your planet?
Hmm.
> Jim K
Tim Lamb
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes
Kids! Apple wood green burns fit for a Queen:-)
regards
--
Tim Lamb
Jim K
wrote:
> Jim K wrote:
> > On 26 Sep, 15:18, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> Jim K wrote:
> >>> On 26 Sep, 10:08, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> No. I am telling the truth.
> >>> as you understand it so far, maybe...
> >>>> I have put fresh chainsawn logs on fires, and if they are not too big,
> >>>> they will eventually dry out and catch and burn.
> >>> er yes but you don;t really *want* all that sh1t up your **stove's**
> >>> chimney/liner walls do you?
> >> if its an open fire it needs sweeping anyway.
>
> > I reckon yours will need it more than average before it catches fire/
> > poisons the upstairs with flue gases thru corrided mortar joints....
>
> cant do. All interlocked fireclay ceramic sections..
>
> Does need a sweep after ten years tho.
can you confirm the OP's chimney built like that?
> >>> mmmm and fur up your chimney/liner with flammable corrosive tars -
> >>> good idea? ...er no...
> >> Not a lot more than you do anyway.
>
> > eh?
>
> >> Tars don't dry out in a year anyway.
>
> > so? the tars are what you want to burn when you burn the *dried* wood
> > - your ""burn" it green" method steams the tars out and sticks them to
> > the chimney/liner that's the whole Fing point.......
>
> Er no, teh tars stay behind - they are not mostly volatile at low temps.
> If they do vapourise, they burn.
for the OPs benefit:- (I doubt *you* will ever accept anyone else's
POV has merit - cambridge you say? figures)
"Most of the moisture content remaining in seasoned firewood consists
of wood resins. As wood heats up in the fire chamber, these resins
emit combustible gases which, when ignited in the secondary burn
chamber, can account for as much as half the heat output of the fire.
When green or wet firewood is burned, the extra water content turns to
steam and mixes with the wood gases, preventing them from igniting and
releasing their heat value. When the draft control is set too low and
the fire smolders, the wood gases won't ignite in the resulting oxygen-
starved environment, even if the firewood is properly seasoned. When
the wood gases aren't burned in the secondary burn chamber, they
escape up the chimney, taking their heat value with them and creating
heavy creosote formation.
Don't Let Creosote Build Up In The Chimney
Creosote is a highly combustible substance which condenses in liquid
form as wood exhaust cools in the chimney, and then solidifies as it
dries. If ignited, creosote can burn for days at temperatures
exceeding 2,000 degrees, which is hot enough to destroy the chimney
and ignite surrounding combustibles. Creosote is very caustic; if
allowed to accumulate, it will significantly shorten the lifetime of
the stovepipe and chimney. A seasoned-wood fire that is given enough
oxygen for proper combustion will reduce creosote formation in two
ways, by consuming more of the wood gases while at the same time
sending more heat up the chimney to reduce flue gas cooling. "
> >>> you've missed the point again.
> >> No, I haven't. Green wood burns. If what you want is to burn it, and
> >> generate heat, it works almost as well.
>
> > yes you have..... reading the OP he mentions *stove* therefore he
> > wants heat (and uses a chimney/liner) NOT the "disposal of green wood
> > in a bonfire" as you appear to have got yourself hung up on
>
> So bonfires don't generate heat on your planet?
? does your definition of bonfire (conveniently yet mystifyingly) now
stretch to include:- a fire, in a practically enclosed (save air
vents) metal box (we call them stoves)
HMMMM even more "interesting"....
Jim K
The Natural Philosopher
1/. A quote with no reference is no different from a personal opinion
put in quotations.
> "Most of the moisture content remaining in seasoned firewood consists
> of wood resins. As wood heats up in the fire chamber, these resins
> emit combustible gases which, when ignited in the secondary burn
> chamber, can account for as much as half the heat output of the fire.
> When green or wet firewood is burned, the extra water content turns to
> steam and mixes with the wood gases, preventing them from igniting and
> releasing their heat value.
Not on my experience for more than a few seconds.
When the draft control is set too low and
> the fire smolders, the wood gases won't ignite in the resulting oxygen-
> starved environment, even if the firewood is properly seasoned. When
> the wood gases aren't burned in the secondary burn chamber, they
> escape up the chimney, taking their heat value with them and creating
> heavy creosote formation.
>
Complete straw man as this has nothing to do with wet wood..
> Don't Let Creosote Build Up In The Chimney
>
> Creosote is a highly combustible substance which condenses in liquid
> form as wood exhaust cools in the chimney, and then solidifies as it
> dries. If ignited, creosote can burn for days at temperatures
> exceeding 2,000 degrees, which is hot enough to destroy the chimney
> and ignite surrounding combustibles. Creosote is very caustic; if
> allowed to accumulate, it will significantly shorten the lifetime of
> the stovepipe and chimney. A seasoned-wood fire that is given enough
> oxygen for proper combustion will reduce creosote formation in two
> ways, by consuming more of the wood gases while at the same time
> sending more heat up the chimney to reduce flue gas cooling. "
>
Sigh.
Even your made up quote contradicts you.
No one is talking about burning damp wood with no air.
We aren't making charc9oal.
harry
>
> - Show quoted text -
All the above is exactly right.
But you can't reason with him, he's as thick as a plank.
He was a janitor at Cambridge you know.
harry
>
> - Show quoted text -
Everyone is telling you that you are an idiot. Why don't you listen?
Jim K
wrote:
> 1/. A quote with no reference is no different from a personal opinion
> put in quotations.
oh dear!! desperate measures already?
anyone that desperate to know the source of the quote can merely
google the first sentence - can you?
> > "Most of the moisture content remaining in seasoned firewood consists
> > of wood resins. As wood heats up in the fire chamber, these resins
> > emit combustible gases which, when ignited in the secondary burn
> > chamber, can account for as much as half the heat output of the fire.
> > When green or wet firewood is burned, the extra water content turns to
> > steam and mixes with the wood gases, preventing them from igniting and
> > releasing their heat value.
>
> Not on my experience for more than a few seconds.
sigh but it would seem the rest of the world can easily see the risks
to be aware of with green wood burning
> When the draft control is set too low and
>
> > the fire smolders, the wood gases won't ignite in the resulting oxygen-
> > starved environment, even if the firewood is properly seasoned. When
> > the wood gases aren't burned in the secondary burn chamber, they
> > escape up the chimney, taking their heat value with them and creating
> > heavy creosote formation.
>
> Complete straw man as this has nothing to do with wet wood..
>
> > Don't Let Creosote Build Up In The Chimney
>
> > Creosote is a highly combustible substance which condenses in liquid
> > form as wood exhaust cools in the chimney, and then solidifies as it
> > dries. If ignited, creosote can burn for days at temperatures
> > exceeding 2,000 degrees, which is hot enough to destroy the chimney
> > and ignite surrounding combustibles. Creosote is very caustic; if
> > allowed to accumulate, it will significantly shorten the lifetime of
> > the stovepipe and chimney.
>>A seasoned-wood fire that is given enough
> > oxygen for proper combustion will reduce creosote formation in two
> > ways, by consuming more of the wood gases while at the same time
> > sending more heat up the chimney to reduce flue gas cooling. "
>
> Sigh.
>
> Even your made up quote contradicts you.
care to share? or can't be bothered to explain more of your skewed
views for further comment?
> No one is talking about burning damp wood with no air.
you now claim to know what the OP is planning to do with *his* yew
logs in *his* stove?
Keep digging this is fun to watch ;>)
Jim K
The Natural Philosopher
Because in this instance, I am right,. Just because you are an idiot,
and dont listen, doesn't mean everyone else is too.
The Natural Philosopher
No, that's YOU.
The difference is, I run a large part of this house on wood burning open
fires and a stove. I know what happens when you use damp wood. Its not
ideal, but it works.
YOU are relying on hearsay and pseudo science.
The Natural Philosopher
> On 27 Sep, 09:14, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> others (including myself) have since highlighted.
>
No, I did not. I merely said it would work.
Others then set the straw man up that I was therefore claiming it was no
different.
I am not responsible for their inability to reason logically.
> Risks that you smugly believe don;t apply to you and your carlos
> fandango chimney (doubtless designed and installed solely by
> yourself?)
>
>> The difference is, I run a large part of this house on wood burning open
>
> "the difference" between what??
me and you.
>
>> fires and a stove. I know what happens when you use damp wood. Its not
>> ideal, but it works.
>
> "not ideal" - is that it then? I suppose it's a tacit admission which
> should be welcomed...
>
I never said dry wood wasn't better. I merely said it was neither
essential nor was wet wood hugely deleterious: Any wood contains some
moisture. There is no 'dry' wood. Even air dryed wood of several years
age contains about 15-17% water by weight. Green wood contains more, but
in the case of the harder woods, not actually that much more.
Educate yourself for a change:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_drying
"Although if a 50% wet log is burnt at high temperature, with good heat
extraction from the exhaust gas leading to a 100C exhaust temperature,
only about 5% of the energy of the log is wasted evaporating and heating
the water vapour. With condensers, the efficiency can be further
increased, but for the normal stove, the key to burning wet wood is to
burn it very hot, perhaps starting fire with dry wood."
Which is pretty much what I have been saying all along. Burn it hot with
plenty of air, and once the steam has gone, its dry wood anyway.
> > YOU are relying on hearsay and pseudo science.
>
> you are hanging yourself on your own stupidity
>
No, I am telling you the real practical effects of using green wood to burn.
Its neither totally stupid, nor a a waste of energy. Nor a massive
increase in soot and tar production.
A green log placed on a hot fire dries rapidly and burns like any other log.
The key, as I said in the first post I made, is to use drier wood to
kindle, and not attempt to burn very large green logs as these take a
long time to heat up to the interior to expel the moisture.
This is not the same as restricting oxygen supply and creating unburnt
tars. Another straw man I think you introduced.
> Jim K
Jim K
wrote:
> >> No, that's YOU.
> > you advised the OP to just chuck it on with no regard for the risks
> > others (including myself) have since highlighted.
>
> No, I did not. I merely said it would work.
yes you did ya plank! see you first post (copy below to remind you)
> Others then set the straw man up that I was therefore claiming it was no
> different.
it's always been "the others" hasn't it.....
> I am not responsible for their inability to reason logically.
shirker
> > Risks that you smugly believe don;t apply to you and your carlos
> > fandango chimney (doubtless designed and installed solely by
> > yourself?)
>
> >> The difference is, I run a large part of this house on wood burning open
>
> > "the difference" between what??
>
> me and you.
oh? how many of my fires and stoves do you know of?
> >> fires and a stove. I know what happens when you use damp wood. Its not
> >> ideal, but it works.
>
> > "not ideal" - is that it then? I suppose it's a tacit admission which
> > should be welcomed...
>
> The key, as I said in the first post I made, is to use drier wood to
> kindle, and not attempt to burn very large green logs as these take a
> long time to heat up to the interior to expel the moisture.
you are at best delusional - here is your much vaunted first post with
my asterixes:-
=====
"Odd. but they are no longer usable - you need to plank the wood
within
weeks of cutting.
A year should be enough but cut and split as early as possible and
store in dry places if you can.
I've burnt almost green wood without much problem, especially in a
stove.
****Light with something a bit drier, and then just pile it in."****
======
> This is not the same as restricting oxygen supply and creating unburnt
> tars. Another straw man I think you introduced.
Not so - another of your squirms - restricting the air supply is how
the rest of us control stoves... OP plans to burn the wood in his
*stove*, you advocated "piling it in." full stop - NO references
whatsooever to oxygen supply /restricting air vents etc hence my
first post about you being a troll...
where is my £5?
Jim K
The Natural Philosopher
No squirms Jim. You and others were the ones that tried to bend the
subject away from what it was to suit your own prejudices. Not me.
It was specifically yew, in a stove, Yew is a dense slow growing wood
with not a high natural water content anyway. It is likely to burn very
well totally green, and in any case once logged, it doesn't take long
for wood to dry out as much as it is ever likeley to:-
"There are people who insist that wood should be dried (seasoned) for at
least one or two years. Experimental evidence has established that that
is nearly always unnecessary, as long as the pieces of wood are cut to
length and stacked. Natural airflows through the stack, and particularly
through the cut cells of the pieces of wood themselves, dries them
sooner than that. Experimental evidence has established that one-foot
long cut pieces generally dry to acceptable levels in just two or three
months. Two-foot long cut pieces take about six or seven months for
similar acceptability. Four-foot long cut pieces DO require at least a year.
Associated with this, covering the woodpile with a tarp slightly
improves this, but probably not enough to make the expense of a tarp
worthwhile, except in a climate where rain and very high humidity is
common. Similarly, split pieces of wood tend to dry slightly faster than
full diameter logs, but again by minimal amounts.
There appears to be no value in drying firewood more than about nine
months."
(http://mb-soft.com/juca/print/firewood.html)
See, I CITE my references. So you can read them yourself. I don't just
make them up..Note the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. Not just mindless Bandar
Log repetition of myth.....
> where is my £5?
>
I have no idea. I am not responsible for your inability to keep control
of your money, either.
> Jim K
dennis@home
"Jim K" <jk98...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:833dda0e-0078-4d23...@x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Sep, 23:52, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
8<
> Keep digging this is fun to watch ;>)
TNP suffers from "right man syndrome" or at least that's what he claimed I
had when describing his own behaviour. ;-)
Jim K
oh dear dear !
you are a troll.
Jim K
sigh, you seem adept at googling for appropriate words - as i said
earlier (did you forget that too?) - "try googling the first sentence
of my quote" (it's really trivial with even a modicum of skill with
'cut and paste') it's the first link that google will present ......
interestingly from your OWN supplied reference:- + my asterixes
"Freshly cut wood has a very high moisture content. As much as 60% (or
more) of the weight of a tree is water. At least some of this water
must be removed before trying to use it as a fuel wood. See Amount of
Energy in Wood, for a discussion of why that is necessary. Several bad
results can occur from burning wood that is not fully dried to below
25% moisture content. (Such wood is referred to as "green" wood). As
that discussion mentions, the effective available heat is MUCH less,
not just because there is less wood fibers in each pound of wood put
in the woodburner, but that a good percentage of that heat must be
used to evaporate all that water before those wood fibers can burn.
***Another VERY important consequence of burning green wood is that
the presence of all that moisture tends to keep "putting out" the
fire, and therefore making it burn very poorly, which tends to produce
a lot of creosote and pollution. Don't Do It!****"
"That's why logs which have lain in the woods for years may still have
a lot of moisture and may not burn well (unless cut and dried.) We
have heard of people cutting up these downed trees and immediately
putting them in a woodburner! And the wood burns poorly! Now you know
why!"
which would strongly suggest your claim/recommendation for burning
green/freshly chainsawed logs is indeed utter cock ?
or I wonder, do you have a reserve squirm away from your own cited
reference site?
C'mon! me and "the bigger boys" are all watching.....;>)))
Jim K
The Natural Philosopher
> C'mon! me and "the bigger boys" are all watching.....;>)))
>
There are non so blind as those that *will* not see.
You aren't worth arguing with.
You don't want to learn, you just want to win.
*plonk*
> Jim K
Jim K
wrote:
awwwww!!
you can't argue for sh1t fella
*fizz*
Jim K
wrote:
> You aren't worth arguing with.
;>) praise indeed!!
> You don't want to learn, you just want to win.
& you don't want to impart any helpful constructive knowledge, you
seem to want to subvert others into making mistakes to boost your own
adequacy issues....
Jim K
harry
> "Jim K" <jk989...@gmail.com> wrote in message
He was a janitor at Cambridge & hence is so much better than the rest
of us.
David
Thanks for this guys. I've reached the conclusion that the answer is
yes. I'll get the lengths, cut a couple of six-inch logs off each end
and burn these first. I'll cut the rest up into logs, split them and
burn them second maybe even drying them a bit more in the basket, or
next to the fire.
Again, thanks
David
dennis@home
"Jim K" <jk98...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:833dda0e-0078-4d23...@x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Sep, 23:52, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
8<
> Keep digging this is fun to watch ;>)
TNP suffers from "right man syndrome" or at least that's what he claimed I
The Natural Philosopher
> On 27 Sep, 13:24, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>> "Jim K" <jk989...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:833dda0e-0078-4d23...@x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On 26 Sep, 23:52, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
>> 8<
>>
>>> Keep digging this is fun to watch ;>)
>> TNP suffers from "right man syndrome" or at least that's what he claimed I
>> had when describing his own behaviour. ;-)
>
No Denis, I don't suffer from right man syndrome. I am perfectly willing
to admit I am wrong when faced with factual evidence or a coherently
constructed logical argument.
Yiou have never presented me, or anyione else here, m with either.
> He was a janitor at Cambridge & hence is so much better than the rest
> of us.
Was I ? where and when was that then?
harry
wrote:
You were bragging a couple of weeks back that you had attended
Cambriidge U. As you are so ill educated it, can only have been as a
janitor or similar.
Unless educational standards have recently taken a nose dive there.
Or did you do Television Studies?
dennis@home
"harry" <harol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1bab6849-1c5a-4a2b...@n3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> You were bragging a couple of weeks back that you had attended
> Cambriidge U. As you are so ill educated it, can only have been as a
> janitor or similar.
> Unless educational standards have recently taken a nose dive there.
> Or did you do Television Studies?
Cambridge was never the best Uni for science.
It is a good Uni if you want to join groups that will get you cushy jobs in
the civil service, MI5, etc.
Jim K
Mark Twain: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.
It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Jim K
Jim K
> "harry" <haroldhr...@aol.com> wrote in message
Mark Twain: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.
The Natural Philosopher
Well well well. No bragging: merely a statement of fact. My CV speaks
for itself.
> Unless educational standards have recently taken a nose dive there.
> Or did you do Television Studies?
No, I have a masters in engineering, harry, from 1972.
Which confirms that not only are you a complete fuckwit, with no real
understanding of anything technical, but you are so far enmired that you
cant recognise it in anyone else.
You must be a public sector idler. Or in local government.
Jim K
I expect it shouts but does it make any *sense* though?
Jim K
harry
>
> - Show quoted text -
I reckon you are subject to delusions. You need to go and lie down, &
take that medication. You've clearly been neglecting it lately.
The stuff we discuss here is not even "O-level" physics & you have no
grasp of it.
The Natural Philosopher
On the contrary, its a lot more than that, and you have yet to show you
eve begin to grasp the basic concepts.