# More wood in a pickup bed, split or unsplit?



## MR4WD (Oct 4, 2009)

Just like the title asks.

This is a tad better then 2/3 cord of Douglas Fir






Could I fit more in this shortbox if I split it? The truck's a full load, I hate sucking dust on logging roads, each trip counts.

Just bought a splitter, if that counts


----------



## Beefie (Oct 4, 2009)

You can put more split wood in a truck than you can in the round. Split wood will have less air space between each pc than a round whould have. I would bring the splitter a long, you will also leave most of the mess in the forest and less cleanup at home.

Beefie


----------



## qweesdraw (Oct 4, 2009)

Look at all the air space between the rounds.air space between the wheel wells.
If you split/stack it you can get more in.(or rip/ just split in 1/2) load it well you can haul more.(splitter in 1/2 -1/4) would be faster.
It looks just over 1/2 cord to me,2/3 cord?? (possibly)on a 6 ft box.
As i tell wood customers and how i make a cord is 3 sheets of 4 x 8 osb/plywood one on the back side.4 x4 x 8 BOX, the open end is to load.
On a 6ft box 2ft tall average load is 1/2 cord stacked to the top side mirrors.(2 loads) average.
Just my opinion.
Mark


----------



## gdhome2 (Oct 4, 2009)

I've never actually performed the experiment but I agree that split wood will make a bigger load. I've heard the same to be true as well. Less air gap between the pieces if carefully loaded. Easier to get loaded into the truck as well.

Those are some nice looking rounds you've got there, no rot. That'll make some good burnin firewood.


----------



## MR4WD (Oct 4, 2009)

gdhome2 said:


> I've never actually performed the experiment but I agree that split wood will make a bigger load. I've heard the same to be true as well. Less air gap between the pieces if carefully loaded. Easier to get loaded into the truck as well.
> 
> Those are some nice looking rounds you've got there, no rot. That'll make some good burnin firewood.



Thanks, I try and "timber cruise" for big snags. I've got my eye on a 150' tall 4' doug fir snag. It's gonna take more than 1 trip to pull it out... I like to stick to 2'-3' and under standing dead though.

Anyways, I think about it like this: If you peel a carrot, you end up with way more space taken up than if the carrot was whole. Same thing When you shred cheese. It takes more room.....

Looks like I loaded the bed of my truck fairly sloppy, but when I unloaded and stacked the rounds, then split them... it took up MORE room than just regular old rounds. 

I had what looked like just under 3 cords turn into just over 3 tightly stacked, split cords. I think something has to do with the size of wood you stuff in your truck is too.


----------



## ohioburner (Oct 4, 2009)

I have to agree with MW4DR as it seems I can get more wood in the truck when it is not split but it is easier to load with it being split. Plus as Beefie said, no mess at home which is a big plus for me.


----------



## smokinj (Oct 4, 2009)

I can haul more weight in the rounds so thats got to be more wood.Take a look at that pick up sure tells the story,but most pick-ups are limited by weight


----------



## trialanderror (Oct 4, 2009)

Beefie said:


> You can put more split wood in a truck than you can in the round. Split wood will have less air space between each pc than a round whould have. I would bring the splitter a long, you will also leave most of the mess in the forest and less cleanup at home.
> 
> Beefie




hey now, i regret the comment about the 'mess'

i split nearly 18 cord this summer, right next to my burner. Everytime i finish splitting a cord or so, i scoop shoveled and pitch forked the 'mess' into the burner, packed as tight as i could, sometimes having to hercules the door & latch.. Spent the entire summer months heating my hot water with it. Always got 10-14 hrs on a load.... Never touched any that was split/stacked.... 

sorry, just had to comment, nothing is a waste with my burner.


----------



## MNGuns (Oct 4, 2009)

Not sure I would want to cruise logging roads with that splitter in tow. They just don't look like they are built to rack up a lot of mileage. My .02


----------



## Streblerm (Oct 4, 2009)

I can get 2/3 of a cord of split wood in the back of my 6.75' bed and still be able to use the rearview mirror and close the tailgate.


----------



## Paul61 (Oct 4, 2009)

MR4WD said:


> Thanks, I try and "timber cruise" for big snags. I've got my eye on a 150' tall 4' doug fir snag. It's gonna take more than 1 trip to pull it out... I like to stick to 2'-3' and under standing dead though.
> 
> .



Carefull workin with that snag, we don't want to read your "Last post" in the papers!?

Paul


----------



## MR4WD (Oct 4, 2009)

MNGuns said:


> Not sure I would want to cruise logging roads with that splitter in tow. They just don't look like they are built to rack up a lot of mileage. My .02



I agree. I'm more worried about the dust than anything. I don't drive more than 20k one way to get wood though. Still, it's a 3000' climb. The roads I run are smooth and vacant too. Just dusty! And steep! The other side of things, is I don't mind the mess. Just goes into the firepit.








Paul61 said:


> Carefull workin with that snag, we don't want to read your "Last post" in the papers!?
> 
> Paul



I try and get em pretty fresh still, just dead or on the verge of...


----------



## Old Goat (Oct 4, 2009)

> MR4WD said:
> 
> 
> > Just like the title asks.
> ...


----------



## TonyK (Oct 4, 2009)

When I neatly stack my trailer full of rounds and then dump spit and restack neatly I always end up with a larger stack and a small pile that won't travel without being at risk of falling off. I would think that the higher overall density of the rounds would make up for the larger air gap over the multiple air gaps with the splits.


----------



## KsWoodsMan (Oct 4, 2009)

+1 :agree2: The stack always grows when it is split.


----------



## smokinj (Oct 4, 2009)

KsWoodsMan said:


> +1 :agree2: The stack always grows when it is split.



+1


----------



## Dalmatian90 (Oct 4, 2009)

> There is only one way to answer this question. Bring your next load home in rounds, take pictures, unload and split, reload and take pictures again, post pictures here. This would all be done in the name of science.



And include a tape measure, extended, in the photos to prove the volume because otherwise we'll have a discussion started about the effects of perspective on photographs


----------



## woodbooga (Oct 4, 2009)

KsWoodsMan said:


> +1 :agree2: The stack always grows when it is split.



Fluffing.

We had a monster thread last year on the subject - I don't think it ever came to a definitive conclusion.

Anyone here have a direct dial to the producers of Mythbusters? Might be a good one for them. Don't know tho' if there'd be much interested since the opportunity to blow something up of start a controlled conflagration isn't up to their usual standards.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Absolutely positively there will be more wood per unit volume when the wood is unsplit. Nobody ever packs it as tight as Mother Nature my dad always said. I did the experiment with my big truck back in the day. I know there was more when unsplit because I had the truck weighed with split and with unsplit wood on it several times. I kept the weigh slips in the glove box in case I was pulled over by the weight cops. They loved to hassle us firewood and log haulers.

If I remember correctly I was hauling around 21K for mixed hardwoods unsplit and split it was just under 19K. I was legal for weight with split wood, but with blocks I was over so I always fretted when hauling unsplit wood that I would get weighed.

The truck bed was 16' long and I could stack 10 rows of 18" firewood to the tail perfectly. Also the sides were exactly 4' high and so I knew exactly the height of the rack. I hauled many, many loads of unsplit blocks and after splitting I could get at least 11 face cords out of the same load, and sometimes it was as high as 12-13. Big blocks from monster trees can be packed really tight on the truck. Split them up and the volume grows a lot. Small rounds do not puff up as much because the number of pieces does not climb like the big chunks did.

Do the experiment yourself. Take an unsplit load to a grain mill, gravel pit or a trucking company and pay a few $$$ to get a weight. Then fill the truck with the same species of wood split. Get a weight and you will answer the question beyond all doubt. Play fair and be sure to fill the nooks and crannies of the truck equally well for both loads. My truck was a flat bed stake rack so that was not an issue for me. It was a big box.


----------



## KsWoodsMan (Oct 4, 2009)

woodbooga said:


> Fluffing.
> 
> We had a monster thread last year on the subject - I don't think it ever came to a definitive conclusion.
> 
> Anyone here have a direct dial to the producers of Mythbusters? Might be a good one for them. Don't know tho' if there'd be much interested since the opportunity to *blow something up of start a controlled conflagration *isn't up to their usual standards.



Why not ! I'm in the mood to break something. 

I do remember the thread too. It was a mixed decision. Stacked rounds grow when split and restacked. Twisted logs shrink when blocked, then split and stacked. At least that was my take on the outcome.


----------



## Austin1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Curlycherry1 said:


> Absolutely positively there will be more wood per unit volume when the wood is unsplit. Nobody ever packs it as tight as Mother Nature my dad always said. I did the experiment with my big truck back in the day. I know there was more when unsplit because I had the truck weighed with split and with unsplit wood on it several times. I kept the weigh slips in the glove box in case I was pulled over by the weight cops. They loved to hassle us firewood and log haulers.
> 
> If I remember correctly I was hauling around 21K for mixed hardwoods unsplit and split it was just under 19K. I was legal for weight with split wood, but with blocks I was over so I always fretted when hauling unsplit wood that I would get weighed.
> 
> ...


well said I find the same thing I stop on the Hi Way self way scales. I also use smaller and shorter rounds to fill up the space around the wheel wells. With a topper on a truck or side or side stakes I could bring back a full cord once split and stacked. I should note I am talking dead dry pine very light. I did load up some Green Poplar once that was heavy! and it was just a level box in my buddy's F250 actually made it squat somewhat.


----------



## Austin1 (Oct 4, 2009)

MR4WD said:


> Just like the title asks.
> 
> This is a tad better then 2/3 cord of Douglas Fir
> 
> ...


That's a nice load of fir! I can get Fir here but the drive is to far to make it worth wile, I will stick to my lodge Polls. I like Fir much more than Birch it is the premium wood of the North.
For me It's Pine I like it much more than Black Spruce or Poplar and Aspen.
I Elk hunt in a area that has some Monster Firs as wide as the hood on my truck I have been parking under the same tree for the last 20+ years lol. They are in a protected zone free from Logging or oil exploration if only they could talk would be kinda neat to here about the buffalo walking past. Any 24'' tree here is a big one lot's of trees but they are not that big.
P.S you didn't cut that yourself did you? the boy's under the truck look like they did all the work?


----------



## beagledog (Oct 4, 2009)

You can't pack wood tighter than mother nature packs it in a round. Yeah, you have air space around parts of the surface of the round but split that round into a bunch of pieces and you just increased the total surface area of the round big time.


----------



## rbtree (Oct 4, 2009)

Old Goat said:


> > A solid cord would be one piece of wood 4x4x4. If it is split into wedges and stacked it becomes a stack 4x4x8.
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite....A solid cord is generally 80 cubic feet.....and 128 when split/stacked normally. Naturally, there will always be variations. But a too tightly stacked pile would take longer to dry.


----------



## Austin1 (Oct 4, 2009)

rbtree said:


> Old Goat said:
> 
> 
> > Not quite....A solid cord is generally 80 cubic feet.....and 128 when split/stacked normally. Naturally, there will always be variations. But a too tightly stacked pile would take longer to dry.
> ...


----------



## chainsawaddict (Oct 4, 2009)

MR4WD
You have a excellent opportunity to find out and solve our age old dillemma.

Simply split all that fir, and see how much of it you can get back into the pickup. Sounds like a great experiment to me


----------



## WidowMaker (Oct 4, 2009)

rbtree said:


> Old Goat said:
> 
> 
> > Not quite....A solid cord is generally 80 cubic feet.....and 128 when split/stacked normally. Naturally, there will always be variations. But a too tightly stacked pile would take longer to dry.
> ...


----------



## ray benson (Oct 4, 2009)

Yeah, I have seen figures of 80 to 90 solid cu. ft. in a cord. Air takes up the rest. Look at table 2
http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPub.aspx?P=G5450


----------



## WidowMaker (Oct 4, 2009)

ray benson said:


> Yeah, I have seen figures of 80 to 90 solid cu. ft. in a cord. Air takes up the rest. Look at table 2
> http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPub.aspx?P=G5450



===

Thanks for the link...


----------



## discounthunter (Oct 5, 2009)

the original question was ,i believe; can he get more into his pickup split or whole. the answer is split.

while in the yard yes a properly split and stacked (to dry) cord will take up more space, but he wont be stacking in his truck to dry ,he will pack it as tight as posibly so split will fill up All the spaces. enen if he put wholes in and splits a couple of pieces, those small wedges will fill in those big gaps between rounds.take a look at the first picture and look at all the air space .


----------



## outdoorlivin247 (Oct 5, 2009)

woodbooga said:


> Fluffing.
> 
> We had a monster thread last year on the subject - I don't think it ever came to a definitive conclusion.
> 
> Anyone here have a direct dial to the producers of Mythbusters? Might be a good one for them. Don't know tho' if there'd be much interested since the opportunity to blow something up of start a controlled conflagration isn't up to their usual standards.



That would be your in...Is it easier to split wood w/ explosives...


----------



## MR4WD (Oct 5, 2009)

Austin1 said:


> That's a nice load of fir! I can get Fir here but the drive is to far to make it worth wile, I will stick to my lodge Polls. I like Fir much more than Birch it is the premium wood of the North.
> For me It's Pine I like it much more than Black Spruce or Poplar and Aspen.
> I Elk hunt in a area that has some Monster Firs as wide as the hood on my truck I have been parking under the same tree for the last 20+ years lol. They are in a protected zone free from Logging or oil exploration if only they could talk would be kinda neat to here about the buffalo walking past. Any 24'' tree here is a big one lot's of trees but they are not that big.
> P.S you didn't cut that yourself did you? the boy's under the truck look like they did all the work?



We have no shortage of birch here, but all the good ones have been cut already. It's almost like EVERYBODY wants birch and nobody will burn fir. It's almost the same heat, except fir splits way easier and it leaves way less ash to clean up. I'll burn birch when it drops down to -20 though, the coal beds last a bit longer.

I used to live in Calgary for 2 years before I moved out here. The climates almost the same, a bit hotter here in the summer and way more rain though. Last winter I heated almost solely with Lodge pole, which I cut from my last property. I'm 20 minutes from there now and there's next to NO pine in this valley, just lots and lots of fir. I'm too cheap to go for a drive to get pine so doug fir it is.

Them critters offer no help. They like stealing birch bark off the stack and tearing it to shreds all over the lawn. The big black one (Great dane/Collie cross) likes stealing birch and running warp factor 9 around the acreage with it. The Golden Retreiver is more cow than dog. Steady eat'n grass all day and chewing up whatever sticks she can. Don't know who's dog the brown and white one is, it just sneaks under the fence to hang out.


----------



## MR4WD (Oct 5, 2009)

chainsawaddict said:


> MR4WD
> You have a excellent opportunity to find out and solve our age old dillemma.
> 
> Simply split all that fir, and see how much of it you can get back into the pickup. Sounds like a great experiment to me




I'll extend you a formal invite to my place anytime you're in the neighborhood. I'll even loan you my splitter to try you're experiment out!


----------



## turnkey4099 (Oct 5, 2009)

discounthunter said:


> the original question was ,i believe; can he get more into his pickup split or whole. the answer is split.
> 
> while in the yard yes a properly split and stacked (to dry) cord will take up more space, but he wont be stacking in his truck to dry ,he will pack it as tight as posibly so split will fill up All the spaces. enen if he put wholes in and splits a couple of pieces, those small wedges will fill in those big gaps between rounds.take a look at the first picture and look at all the air space .



Nope: Here are two picks of ricks in the round, one in the PU:






There are only two spots where a useable chunk can be inserted - top left and in the middle. Even the middle on will only take a piece a bit over kindling size unless you want to whittle one to fit perfectly (bottom right and left are the wheel wells).

One in a rick waiting for splitting:






That one has no space that will take anything other than a piece of kindling. 

In any case, even if you could 'pack the chinks', you would only be increasing the amount of wood hauled.

Harry K


----------



## turnkey4099 (Oct 5, 2009)

For those who think they can stack split wood tighter than in the round here is an experiment you can do sitting in front of the TV with a brew.

1. Take a carrot and slice into rounds - use one of the long, tapered ones so you have different sized rounds.

Grab a box top and pack it with those rounds one layer deep.

Dump and split the rounds like you would wood.

Now try to put those splits back into the box top - can't be done.

2. Take a carrot that does not taper much or slice rounds off a wood dowel. This will give the maximum amount of 'void' (air space) between the rounds in the box top. Split them and try to fit them back in - again can't be done.

Much easier than loading/splitting/reloading and you get a couple brews while doing it.

Harry K


----------



## Mike PA (Oct 5, 2009)

This situation is analagous to sediments and particle size. Smaller particles tend to have higher porosity (more air space) than larger particles.

Given this, it makes sense that the rounds are the most efficient use of space. To use the space more efficiently, you could split a few pieces and stuff them into the small spaces between rounds.


----------



## Kevin in Ohio (Oct 5, 2009)

A lot of it depends on who is stacking it and how it split. On the whole though, I'd agree more with unsplit IF packed tight. 

We had a local guy who would buy firewood in bulk and stack it in "cord" ricks by the road. He "air stacked" it so much that people were getting just over a 1/2 cord. Put it to you this way. It EASILY fit in a standard truck bed with tailgate up and 1/2 tons would hardly squat. 

View attachment 110955


----------



## MJR (Oct 5, 2009)

Here is Hemlock rounds:
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u54/MJR007/IMG_1937.jpg

Here is Hemlock split:
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u54/MJR007/IMG_1941.jpg

Here is Hemlock spilt and stacked (w/some maple):
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u54/MJR007/woodstack09001.jpg

Rounds take up less room.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 6, 2009)

Ok, I tried to answer this question once and for all yesterday and just when I hit submit I opened up a worm hole and AS went into it and died. Sorry, I guess I messed with the Zen and so the universe could not take it. Anyway, here it goes again.

I made up a face cord rack scale model and I cut up some 1/2" and 1" dowels to simulate average firewood blocks and I filled the rack.






Then I got out the Barbie woodsplitter that she got in the divorse settlement from Ken and I split the wood up. The pieces came out looking just like real firewood complete with knots, and twisted and weird shaped pieces. The photo shows the pieces to look like real firewood.






Then I repiled the wood into the rack being careful to get it as reasonably tight as I could and I even shook the rack to vibrate the pieces together. I did the same with the round pieces also. 

So there you have it, question solved once and for all - split wood takes up more volume. What do I win for solving this conundrum?


----------



## Mike PA (Oct 6, 2009)

Curlycherry1 said:


> So there you have it, question solved once and for all - split wood takes up more volume. What do I win for solving this conundrum?



Wow. Nice job. A lot of work to settle something that should have already been settled.


----------



## woodbooga (Oct 6, 2009)

> got out the Barbie woodsplitter



Hope stihlsawing didn't notice it was missing whilst he was out giving his new red saw a test drive.


----------



## Dalmatian90 (Oct 6, 2009)

OMFG...great job Curlcherry!

I think that post somehow needs to be made a sticky to become the definitive "split or unsplit?" answer.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 6, 2009)

Dalmatian90 said:


> OMFG...great job Curlcherry!
> 
> I think that post somehow needs to be made a sticky to become the definitive "split or unsplit?" answer.



I was worried that because I used dowels that I had actually made myself that they would be too straight grained and the wood would not be "natural' enough. But the black cherry was perfect, knotty, twisted, just like real wood. The pine 1/2" dowels were straight as an arrow but even those split off kilter just like real 4" wood splits.

Edit to add: I wonder how many nights I am going to be able to heat my house with that face cord of wood?


----------



## smokinj (Oct 6, 2009)

Curlycherry1 said:


> I was worried that because I used dowels that I had actually made myself that they would be too straight grained and the wood would not be "natural' enough. But the black cherry was perfect, knotty, twisted, just like real wood. The pine 1/2" dowels were straight as an arrow but even those split off kilter just like real 4" wood splits.
> 
> Edit to add: I wonder how many nights I am going to be able to heat my house with that face cord of wood?



enough to light a good box of cigars, nice job by the way!


----------



## turnkey4099 (Oct 6, 2009)

Now all we need is for some good deniers to point out the errors in that expirament 

Harry K


----------



## ericjeeper (Oct 6, 2009)

turnkey4099 said:


> Now all we need is for some good deniers to point out the errors in that expirament
> 
> Harry K



Oh I am sure a doubting Thomas will be along soon enough...


----------



## outdoorlivin247 (Oct 6, 2009)

Curlycherry1 said:


> Ok, I tried to answer this question once and for all yesterday and just when I hit submit I opened up a worm hole and AS went into it and died. Sorry, I guess I messed with the Zen and so the universe could not take it. Anyway, here it goes again.
> 
> I made up a face cord rack scale model and I cut up some 1/2" and 1" dowels to simulate average firewood blocks and I filled the rack.
> 
> ...




You should have waited for AS to go down before you started your project...Can't rep you...YET...


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 6, 2009)

outdoorlivin247 said:


> You should have waited for AS to go down before you started your project...Can't rep you...YET...



When I first tried to post the results last night I hit submit and AS went down. I may have caused the outage. You can rep me now.


----------



## bore_pig (Oct 6, 2009)

smokinj said:


> I can haul more weight in the rounds so thats got to be more wood.Take a look at that pick up sure tells the story,but most pick-ups are limited by weight



:agree2:


----------



## StihlyinEly (Oct 6, 2009)

Up here we buy maple or birch in logger's cords (96 inch lengths stacked 4 feet high and 4 feet wide, for a standard cord dimension). The wood suppliers say you lose 20 percent off logger's cords after cutting and splitting. I'd say that's about right. We get 8-10 logger's cords a year for our home heating and split and stacked it tends to run 20 percent less by volume. Not quite the same as rounds (what I grew up calling block), because 8-footers stacked next to each other contain a LOT more air because they are not particularly straight.

Great site, by the way!


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 6, 2009)

StihlyinEly said:


> Up here we buy maple or birch in logger's cords (96 inch lengths stacked 4 feet high and 4 feet wide, for a standard cord dimension). The wood suppliers say you lose 20 percent off logger's cords after cutting and splitting. I'd say that's about right. We get 8-10 logger's cords a year for our home heating and split and stacked it tends to run 20 percent less by volume. Not quite the same as rounds (what I grew up calling block), because 8-footers stacked next to each other contain a LOT more air because they are not particularly straight.
> Great site, by the way!



That is the reason why pulp mills buy their logs by weight, not volume. Long crooked logs will have gobs and gobs of air around them, where as short straight logs will pack much tighter.


----------



## Snowchief (Oct 6, 2009)

This thread is a riot!

Curly's scale mockup makes me think of the professor in Back to the future: "forgive the crudity of this model, I didn't have time to build it to scale or to paint it"




ericjeeper said:


> Oh I am sure a doubting Thomas will be along soon enough...



Curly if you still have the setup can you please try it again only with two 4" diameter dowels? I have a hunch the results will change with the larger rounds.

pi*2"*2" x qty 2 rounds = 25 sq.in. face area
8*4" = 32" available area in the rack

Line #1 will always be smaller than line #2, but that difference is a lot bigger if you start with bigger rounds.


----------



## StihlyinEly (Oct 6, 2009)

Great. Mathematics. The usual way to ruin a perfectly good practical thread is with formulas. When did a mathematician ever enter the real world, anyway?


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 6, 2009)

Snowchief said:


> This thread is a riot!
> 
> Curly's scale mockup makes me think of the professor in Back to the future: "forgive the crudity of this model, I didn't have time to build it to scale or to paint it"
> 
> ...



Do I have the setup? Pechaw! Of course I have the setup! I can probably do it this weekend. Stay tuned.


----------



## turnkey4099 (Oct 7, 2009)

_Curly if you still have the setup can you please try it again only with two 4" diameter dowels? I have a hunch the results will change with the larger rounds.

pi*2"*2" x qty 2 rounds = 25 sq.in. face area
8*4" = 32" available area in the rack

Line #1 will always be smaller than line #2, but that difference is a lot bigger if you start with bigger rounds._



Curlycherry1 said:


> Do I have the setup? Pechaw! Of course I have the setup! I can probably do it this weekend. Stay tuned.



The results will be the same in that the splits will not fit in, the difference might be less but I doubt even that. I just layed a 6 1/4" coffee can lid on a white sheet of paper folded to a tight square fit. Not much space in the corners. Too late tonight to shoot a pic, upload, etc on dial-up.

Harry K


----------



## bucktechservice (Oct 7, 2009)

*split...*

why handle it twice.


----------



## logbutcher (Oct 7, 2009)

In Medieval days the Vatican held High Convocations of the learned Cardinals to determine scientifically (sic) how many angels would fit on the head of a pin.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 7, 2009)

bucktechservice said:


> why handle it twice.



I know that was a major violation of woodmovemet 101 but I wanted to show the pieces looked like what real firewood would look like. If you look carefully you can even see branch knots.


----------



## woodbooga (Oct 7, 2009)

Curlycherry1 said:


> That is the reason why pulp mills buy their logs by weight, not volume. Long crooked logs will have gobs and gobs of air around them, where as short straight logs will pack much tighter.



An old trick amongst scrap metal folks is to hit the scrap yard after a rain - especially if you're dealing in extruded aluminium with all those furrows where water's surface tension will help it collect. 

Some of the old timers I've srapped with estimate they get anywhere between 1-3 'bonus' lbs per hundredweight if they make a drop after a rainstorm.

Wonder if this is the case with pulpwood?


----------



## logbutcher (Oct 7, 2009)

woodbooga said:


> Wonder if this is the case with pulpwood?



No WB. The mills know all the tricks and compensate for it. Carriers will try to fool the inspector by putting the red rot logs inside the load....doesn't work. The high end paper makers don't want diseased softwood.


----------



## turnkey4099 (Oct 7, 2009)

bucktechservice said:


> why handle it twice.



Because the splitter is at home and the trees are 15 to 25 miles away. I bust 'em down to a size I can load and no smaller.

Harry K


----------



## solar (Oct 7, 2009)

With all the time spent debating this, we could probably all just drive out to the poster's house to help move, split, and stack the wood. 

Strictly mathematically speaking, split wood (with a smaller diameter) will stack tighter. Conceptually, imagine a box that’s 4’ cubed. You could not fit a large ball that measured 4’-1” around into the box, but if you broke it down into marble-sized balls then they would all fit.

As Curlycherry1 pointed out, however, there is a lot of inefficiently with manually stacking wood in real life. I would suspect that if he restacked the wood more efficiently (i.e. with triangular shapes alternating between pointing up and down, etc.), and maximized the space then we’d see the net area of the wood pile decrease.


----------



## olyman (Oct 7, 2009)

solar said:


> With all the time spent debating this, we could probably all just drive out to the poster's house to help move, split, and stack the wood.
> 
> Strictly mathematically speaking, split wood (with a smaller diameter) will stack tighter. Conceptually, imagine a box that’s 4’ cubed. You could not fit a large ball that measured 4’-1” around into the box, but if you broke it down into marble-sized balls then they would all fit.
> 
> As Curlycherry1 pointed out, however, there is a lot of inefficiently with manually stacking wood in real life. I would suspect that if he restacked the wood more efficiently (i.e. with triangular shapes alternating between pointing up and down, etc.), and maximized the space then we’d see the net area of the wood pile decrease.



nope--done it--you can get far more wood unsplit,than split, in a truck, esp when you stack the smallest pieces you want keep in between the big rounds--


----------



## turnkey4099 (Oct 8, 2009)

solar said:


> With all the time spent debating this, we could probably all just drive out to the poster's house to help move, split, and stack the wood.
> 
> Strictly mathematically speaking, split wood (with a smaller diameter) will stack tighter. Conceptually, imagine a box that’s 4’ cubed. You could not fit a large ball that measured 4’-1” around into the box, but if you broke it down into marble-sized balls then they would all fit.
> 
> As Curlycherry1 pointed out, however, there is a lot of inefficiently with manually stacking wood in real life. I would suspect that if he restacked the wood more efficiently (i.e. with triangular shapes alternating between pointing up and down, etc.), and maximized the space then we’d see the net area of the wood pile decrease.




That is what people wouild like to believe but it doesn't work. It comes down to fact. You cannot pack a given volume of wood into a space less than what mother nature has already done.

I provided a method where you can test it sitting in front of the TV and curley showed you pictures of his experiment. If you doubt it, and it seems you do, do your own test...we'll wait.

Harry K


----------



## Mike PA (Oct 8, 2009)

solar said:


> Strictly mathematically speaking, split wood (with a smaller diameter) will stack tighter. Conceptually, imagine a box that’s 4’ cubed. You could not fit a large ball that measured 4’-1” around into the box, but if you broke it down into marble-sized balls then they would all fit.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Sorry, but you are wrong. Air space increases with decreasing grain size. Well-sorted sand holds more water than well-sorted gravel. Try it.


----------



## r8ingbull (Oct 8, 2009)

Mike PA said:


> solar said:
> 
> 
> > Strictly mathematically speaking, split wood (with a smaller diameter) will stack tighter. Conceptually, imagine a box that’s 4’ cubed. You could not fit a large ball that measured 4’-1” around into the box, but if you broke it down into marble-sized balls then they would all fit.
> ...


----------



## Mike PA (Oct 8, 2009)

Ok, for the ball example he gave. But, we aren't asking how to fit a round ball into a square opening. :monkey: The example he gave doesn't compare well to his first statement that split wood will stack tighter than rounds and that is what I am responding to. I'm still relating it more to the original question. Given that premise, it is wrong. 

Split the 4'1" ball, stack it, and see how much volume it then occupies. That comparison would be apt for the situation.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 8, 2009)

solar said:


> As Curlycherry1 pointed out, however, there is a lot of inefficiently with manually stacking wood in real life. I would suspect that if he restacked the wood more efficiently (i.e. with triangular shapes alternating between pointing up and down, etc.), and maximized the space then we’d see the net area of the wood pile decrease.



Although I did not do a super, super tight job of packing the wood in the rack, I did do what a reasonably skilled person would do. I consider myself more than just moderatly skilled in stacking wood because I have stacked literally over 10,000 face cords in my life, no kidding. So maybe I did not study each piece for 5 minutes before placing it, I did pack them pretty darn tight in the restack. Also, I placed a piece of plywood across the front of the stack once it was formed and I shook and tapped on the rack for well over a minute to vibrate the pieces tighter together. They are as tight or tighter than the average person would get.

The 4' rounds are being made to do the next phase of the experiment. Who wants to go on record with an official prediction of split volume when two 4' rounds are split up?


----------



## ericjeeper (Oct 8, 2009)

another example.. Take a round that will just fit into a five gallon bucket.. Now split it, and try to get it back in. good luck


----------



## Dalmatian90 (Oct 8, 2009)

From the 1918 book "Forestry in New England:"



> In selling wood there are two units both called cords which are apt to be confused The standard cord is made up of wood cut 4 four feet long while the stove wood or running cord as it is called in northern New England or run for short is made up of wood 16 inches long. Each is a pile 8 feet long and 4 feet high It will be seen that the standard cord contains 128 cubic feet while the run contains only one third as much. *Since the shorter the pieces the less amount of crookedness a cord of stovewood actually contains a little more than one third the volume of a standard cord. Cords made up of thick pieces contain more wood than those of small pieces while round sticks give a higher wood volume than split ones of about the same size.*



http://books.google.com/books?id=hl...nd forestry&pg=PA184#v=onepage&q=cord&f=false

So now into the great rounds v. split debate, we can add the length of firewood (longer = less wood), and big v. small wedges (small = less wood).


----------



## jjett84724 (Oct 8, 2009)

ericjeeper said:


> another example.. Take a round that will just fit into a five gallon bucket.. Now split it, and try to get it back in. good luck



This is a perfect analogy. 

Go buy yourself a truck bed trailer and put rails on it. That will make your trips worthwhile.


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Oct 8, 2009)

KsWoodsMan said:


> +1 :agree2: The stack always grows when it is split.




I agree with you KsWoodsMan....
Have scaled both timber and pulpwood, and the tinier pulpwood allways count more air than the bigger timber logs...10-15% differense...so the smaller pieces the more total air built in between the logs...try to put a round back together after splitting it, you will see that it is hard to get all way back to the original diameter, and that is perfectly stacked....

Lets do an experiment with some help from anyone from you guys that are splitting just now....sample out , lets say 20 rounds that are pretty evenly round, very low taper, bark off, and easy to split. Stack them in a square box, type PU bed or trailer, and measure the exact dimensions....take also some pictures from three different directions on the stack. 

Then measure exact lenght and diameter, in a log sheet and publish here on this thread and we calculate the exact volume of wood!

At last stack the split wood in the same box, measure and take pictures...

And after that we can talk what is more air and makes the bigger stack.....

VOLONTEERS??????


----------



## turnkey4099 (Oct 8, 2009)

AKKAMAAN said:


> I agree with you KsWoodsMan....
> Have scaled both timber and pulpwood, and the tinier pulpwood allways count more air than the bigger timber logs...10-15% differense...so the smaller pieces the more total air built in between the logs...try to put a round back together after splitting it, you will see that it is hard to get all way back to the original diameter, and that is perfectly stacked....
> 
> Lets do an experiment with some help from anyone from you guys that are splitting just now....sample out , lets say 20 rounds that are pretty evenly round, very low taper, bark off, and easy to split. Stack them in a square box, type PU bed or trailer, and measure the exact dimensions....take also some pictures from three different directions on the stack.
> ...



That differs only in scale from what Curly has done (and will do). We still have naysayers but I notice none of them are stepping up to do one of the easy expiraments. I was splitting today and almost succumbed to the urge to do what you suggest buy why do it? No different than Curlies post.

Harry K


----------



## Wood Doctor (Oct 8, 2009)

KsWoodsMan said:


> +1 :agree2: The stack always grows when it is split.


+1. Take freshly picked carrots, cut the tops and roots off, and cram them into a large mason jar. Now remove those same carrots and cut them into 2" to 3" lengths and slice them up for salads. You will never get those sliced carrots back into the jar.

Try the same thing with whole potatoes and cut them for french fries.


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Oct 8, 2009)

Wood Doctor said:


> +1. Take freshly picked carrots, cut the tops and roots off, and cram them into a large mason jar. Now remove those same carrots and cut them into 2" to 3" lengths and slice them up for salads. You will never get those sliced carrots back into the jar.
> 
> Try the same thing with whole potatoes and cut them for french fries.



Very good examples WoodDoc...


----------



## KsWoodsMan (Oct 8, 2009)

Snowchief said:


> This thread is a riot!
> 
> Curly's scale mockup makes me think of the professor in Back to the future: "forgive the crudity of this model, I didn't have time to build it to scale or to paint it"
> 
> ...



By some definitions a cord of wood includes about 20% - 25% of air space between the splits and rounds. 80% of 32 sq. inches is going to be close to 25 sq. inches. This one example will will be very close to the break-even point. IMHO

Been down this road before.


----------



## Wood Doctor (Oct 8, 2009)

KsWoodsMan said:


> By some definitions a cord of wood includes about 20% - 25% of air space between the splits and rounds. 80% of 32 sq. inches is going to be close to 25 sq. inches. This one example will will be very close to the break-even point. IMHO
> 
> Been down this road before.


+1. Take a solid block of wood 2" x 8" x 8" (128 cubic inches), cut from the end of an 8 x 8. Split it into about 100 pieces with a hammer and chisel. Now stack the pieces into one row at tight as you can. Compare that stack to the block that you started with.

'nuff said. :bang:


----------



## Steve NW WI (Oct 8, 2009)

Is it just me, or is it not a coincidence that this thread getting this detailed and crappy weather in most of the eastern half of the country lately?

Cabin fever seems to be here early! Let's hear it for some good cuttin and splittin weather for the weekend!


----------



## Wood Doctor (Oct 8, 2009)

*Ash is Still the Best Firewood*



Steve NW WI said:


> Is it just me, or is it not a coincidence that this thread getting this detailed and crappy weather in most of the eastern half of the country lately?
> 
> Cabin fever seems to be here early! Let's hear it for some good cuttin and splittin weather for the weekend!


Split or unsplit, I have never found a good piece of ash that I never wanted to warm up with.
:biggrinbounce2:


----------



## gallegosmike (Oct 8, 2009)

If you have 3/4 or 1 ton truck, get a 20ft trailer and be done with it. I dont normally have access to large trees like youve got. I mostly cut stuff in the 6" to 18" range for firewood. It is pretty easy to buck down to 18" length logs and stack in the truck. We have metal cage and can transport about 1 cord at a time.


----------



## solar (Oct 9, 2009)

Wood Doctor said:


> +1. Take a solid block of wood 2" x 8" x 8" (128 cubic inches), cut from the end of an 8 x 8. Split it into about 100 pieces with a hammer and chisel. Now stack the pieces into one row at tight as you can. Compare that stack to the block that you started with.
> 
> 'nuff said. :bang:



You guys are all over the place. Wood Doctor, that's a different argument from the one at hand. It's not about how much space is between the logs, it's about which format would fit into the back of his truck better.

Here's an easy test everyone can do:
1) Go to Dunkin Donuts if you're in New England, Starbucks everywhere else.
2) Buy a 1lb bag of coffee beans.
3) Note height of beans in bag.
4) Grind beans.
5) Add grinds back to the original back.
6) Note height.

If anyone has grounds that stack higher than the beans then I'd love in invest in your coffee company. 

If you don't feel like doing the test here's an even easier way. Go to Starbucks and compare the size of a 12oz bag of grounds vs. 12oz bag of beans. I have one of each in my freezer and will save you the time; the latter is taller.

Mr4wd,
all that said, if your back can handle it (mine wouldn't) I'd probably still drive the wood out whole to avoid a) dragging the splitter 25+ miles each way, and b) I usually find it faster to move trunks than split wood.


----------



## redprospector (Oct 9, 2009)

solar said:


> You guys are all over the place. Wood Doctor, that's a different argument from the one at hand. It's not about how much space is between the logs, it's about which format would fit into the back of his truck better.
> 
> Here's an easy test everyone can do:
> 1) Go to Dunkin Donuts if you're in New England, Starbucks everywhere else.
> ...



Come on now, you're comparing coffee grounds to wood. That's like apples to oranges. Neither one will hold water......Well, coffee grounds will hold a little water, but not enough to make your comparison viable.
Grinding coffee beans will remove almost all the air space, splitting wood won't.

Andy


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 10, 2009)

Time to get the last few doubting Thomases on board. 

So I started with a solid hunk of black cherry glued up and sanded smooth.







I then cut nice 4" rounds out of it using a bandsaw circle cutting jig. They actually came out to 3 15/16" and not exactly perfectly round. My blade wandered just a bit. Trees are also not perfectly round so I think this does not matter. But here is the cutting of the rounds.






Then I put the rounds into the face cord rack model. As you can see they fit and there is just a bit of space between them.






Then I split the wood up. As you can see the pieces are very representative of what pieces would look like in real life. They are odd shaped, tapered in some cases, even care a knot or two.






Then I piled it into the rack. To make the Doubting Thomases come on board I can say with 100% certainty I packed the wood tight.  Half way through the pile I shook the rack to settle the pieces. Then I finished piling and filled the rack to overflowing. Then I put a piece of wood on top and I schrunched the pile down and put a lot of force on the pile. It went down but it reached stasis and would not go down any further. This wood is packed far, far tighter than any person could do in a normal pile of wood.

So, there is it, biggest blocks possible still lead to MORE wood split when when un split. Face it Doubting Thomas, Mother Nature packs it tighter than you ever could.


----------



## KsWoodsMan (Oct 10, 2009)

I'd say this pretty much sums up the question. I figured the 2 rounds once split and ricked up would just fill the wood rack. They were even a touch smallish, which we can attribute to peeling the bark off the big rounds, and it still was just a little more than the rack would hold.

I'm a believer that if you want to get more wood back home in as short a time as possible spend your time cutting and loading then split it at home before it goes in the stack.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 10, 2009)

I found three pieces of wood that did not get added to the rack. They fell into a slot on my table saw and I found them when I was cleaning up. So add 3 more pieces to the rack and it would be even more overflowing.


----------



## turnkey4099 (Oct 10, 2009)

I also vote to make this a sticky. Maybe some heavy editing of theposts but those two demonstrations graphically prove the point. Save a lot of bandwidth the next time someone brings up the subject.

Harry K


----------



## redprospector (Oct 10, 2009)

Curlycherry, man you went to a lot of trouble to prove a point.
Good job, my hat's off to you. I would have never gone to that much trouble to prove something I learned the hard way. 

Andy


----------



## olyman (Oct 10, 2009)

and heres another thing--notice the space in between the two rounds curly made--- i have stacked the smallest stuff i burn in between those, then youd have even more left over!!!!!!


----------



## Wood Doctor (Oct 10, 2009)

*Bravo, CurlyCherry1!*

CurlyCherry has eloquently proven my point. 

Carrots and french fried potaties would also have done the same thing, but that cherry wood that Curly cut is immaculate.

I also have demonstrated this to myself with the real thing--firewood split from huge rounds carried on the same truck. The split wood always takes up more room than the orginal rounds. A load of rounds hauled in my Ranger will easily fill an F-150 when split.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 10, 2009)

olyman said:


> and heres another thing--notice the space in between the two rounds curly made--- i have stacked the smallest stuff i burn in between those, then youd have even more left over!!!!!!



That was meant to be an absolute worst case. Those rounds gave the biggest gaps possible and as can be seen, the rack is now filled with more than the rack can hold.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Oct 10, 2009)

Wood Doctor said:


> CurlyCherry has eloquently proven my point.
> 
> Carrots and french fried potaties would also have done the same thing, but that cherry wood that Curly cut is immaculate.
> 
> I also have demonstrated this to myself with the real thing--firewood split from huge rounds carried on the same truck. The split wood always takes up more room than the orginal rounds. A load of rounds hauled in my Ranger will easily fill an F-150 when split.



I realize you all are having fun with this, but if I dig deep enough in my pics, I can show that a 36" oak round, which fits easily on one side of my tractor bucket, will yeild 27 splits, which will fill more than 1/2 of the bucket.

Prove us wrong, ye who beleive that wood can be put into less space after splitting.

I split everything before bringing it to the pile, it is not about what I can haul, it's all about saving a step in the process, I don't have to grab the block again to split it when I get it home.


----------



## Wood Doctor (Oct 11, 2009)

*More Than 27 Splits*

Steve said, "I can show that a 36" oak round, which fits easily on one side of my tractor bucket, will yeild 27 splits, which will fill more than 1/2 of the bucket."
--------------
A 36" dia. oak round will yield far more that 27 splits if you are splitting for firewood. Let's assuume that it's 18" long. That 36" oak round weighs *675 lb*, so each of your 27 logs weighs almost 25 lb.

Glad I'm not asking LOML to load those into the stove. 

You can get at least 50 firewood splits out of a 36" dia oak log--maybe more. Maybe somebody hauled away half of your splits before you loaded the tractor bucket.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Oct 12, 2009)

Wood Doctor said:


> Steve said, "I can show that a 36" oak round, which fits easily on one side of my tractor bucket, will yeild 27 splits, which will fill more than 1/2 of the bucket."
> --------------
> A 36" dia. oak round will yield far more that 27 splits if you are splitting for firewood. Let's assuume that it's 18" long. That 36" oak round weighs *675 lb*, so each of your 27 logs weighs almost 25 lb.
> 
> ...



Since we are getting way too detailed here, (and I woke up in the middle of the night and have nothing better to do), here's a drawing to scale of a 36" round, with split lines on 6". It's not exactly 27 pieces, but then again I don't split with a tape measure either. I shoot for a split size of about 4-6" on a side, so it's not too far off. I'll hunt down the actual pics I was talking about later, can't seem to find them in my jumbled mess I call a computer right now.





On the weight, is that green or dry? I'm also gonna guess that that is in 16" length, I go for 20" or so, stove takes up to 24". 25# is not bad, especially on a -30° night!


----------



## Coldfront (Oct 12, 2009)

Here we go again, I remember from last year I asked if you get more wood when split? Not rounds but a 10 cord loggers load of 8 footers, I always thought I would end up with more than 10 cords when split. But the general consensus was you would get less when split and stacked. I still debate that, the 8 ft log length 10 cord truck load was packed pretty tight, not that much air gaps between logs, you have to end up with a lot more air space when it is all split up? I don't have the space or time to do a full fledged experiment. My split wood gets stacked in with some of last years piles.


----------



## Wood Doctor (Oct 12, 2009)

Steve NW WI said:


> Since we are getting way too detailed here, (and I woke up in the middle of the night and have nothing better to do), here's a drawing to scale of a 36" round, with split lines on 6". It's not exactly 27 pieces, but then again I don't split with a tape measure either. I shoot for a split size of about 4-6" on a side, so it's not too far off. I'll hunt down the actual pics I was talking about later, can't seem to find them in my jumbled mess I call a computer right now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Steve, check out the stuck thread at the top for log weights. Oak does not lose that much water when dried. It's rated at about 55 lb/cubic foot dry, and 63 lb/cubic foot green depending somewhat on species. A 36" dia oak round that's 18" long occupies 10.6 cubic feet and weighs 675 lb green and 585 dry.

So, assuming 585 lb dry, each of your 27 logs would weigh nearly 22 lb apiece when dry. That's why I said 50 logs would be a better estimate for more comfortable handling and burning. Now take those 50 logs and stack them up. I bet they take up more room than the original round, which gets us right back to Post #1.


----------



## woodbooga (Oct 12, 2009)

Coldfront said:


> Here we go again



 The debate's like an annual fall ritual - like taking the kids apple picking, the geese flying south, or the in-laws and my folks trading choice words over Thanksgiving turkey.

Easiest answer to the Q: More wood in a pickup bed, split or unsplit? 












Buy a bigger truck.


----------



## Dalmatian90 (Oct 12, 2009)

> Not rounds but a 10 cord loggers load of 8 footers, I always thought I would end up with more than 10 cords when split. But the general consensus was you would get less when split and stacked.



Depends on the specific question.

A couple pages back I posted a quote from an old book (1918) that stated there was more actual wood in a cord of 16" logs then in one of 48" logs due to "less crookedness."

Comparing short to long logs, short can be packed more efficiently to occupy a smaller volume.

Comparing round to split, split can be packed more efficiently to occupy a smaller volume.

It seems that to carry the most wood volume, we need to have nothing but cookies


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 12, 2009)

Positively, definately once the logs get over 2' long then the volume of wood in a given pile drops off. My brother gets 12' logs all the way up to 30 footers and the trucks with the 30 footers have far less wood on them then the 12' loads. You can see it on the trucks. Hence, he buys by weight.


----------



## TreePointer (Oct 12, 2009)

Stop thinking about it. Just put any extra wood in the cab and go have a beer.


----------



## Coldfront (Oct 12, 2009)

I guess when you talk about crookedness of logs it all depends what kind of wood you are getting. My load of logs was fairly straight 8 footer's mostly red oak, ash, some white oak, not quit as straight as say pine poles, but not that far from it. As far as the original question goes I will put my vote in for more wood in a pickup in the form of rounds.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 12, 2009)

wdchuck said:


> A good way to test it is with a water tank to see what is displaced in both circumstances.



Actually no. First law of firewood dynamics (patterned after the first law of thermodynamics), "Firewood is neither created or destroyed while splitting."

Splitting does not create wood, it just rearranges the density per unit area the wood can occupy. So if you put it in a tank of water, rounds and the splits would displace exactly the same amount of water.


----------



## Coldfront (Oct 12, 2009)

The whole thing is about the amount of air gaps between the pieces. Unsplit wood takes up a smaller space. It was probably said already. Take a 16" round that just fits inside a 5 gal. bucket, then split the piece in 4 and try and fit it back into the bucket, it can't be done.


----------



## wdchuck (Oct 12, 2009)

Great application and answer to the kid in class that asks, " when am I ever going to use this stuff? ". 

Thanks for taking the time to make the model. 


Next trip to the library with the kids, I"ll have to include a textbook on thermodynamics, never too late to learn more.


----------



## Dalmatian90 (Oct 12, 2009)

> Splitting does not create wood, it just rearranges the density per unit area the wood can occupy.



But it will create more surface area, which means the split wood will sponge up more water then rounds would.

And the ability of wood to absorb water will throw off your measurement by liquid displacement.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 12, 2009)

Dalmatian90 said:


> But it will create more surface area, which means the split wood will sponge up more water then rounds would.
> 
> And the ability of wood to absorb water will throw off your measurement by liquid displacement.



Yes, but it will not absorb water right away.

<.........sighs, and off he goes to find a graduated cylinder to do the experiment.


----------



## woodbooga (Oct 12, 2009)

Curlycherry1 said:


> Actually no. First law of firewood dynamics (patterned after the first law of thermodynamics), "Firewood is neither created or destroyed while splitting."



I've destroyed quite a bit of firewood whilst splitting. 

All the loose bark, slivers, punk chunks pile up over a season's worth of splitting. Usually comes to several wheelbarrow loads. Comes in handy in leveling off uneven parts of the yard or keeping the weeds down in the veggie patch, tho'.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Oct 12, 2009)

woodbooga said:


> I've destroyed quite a bit of firewood whilst splitting.
> 
> All the loose bark, slivers, punk chunks pile up over a season's worth of splitting. Usually comes to several wheelbarrow loads. Comes in handy in leveling off uneven parts of the yard or keeping the weeds down in the veggie patch, tho'.



Tis true. Run a processor for a day and watch the pile of junk grow. 30-50 Face cords of firewood in a day will yield 2-5 big buckets on a Kubota of chips, slivers, bark and misc junk. Not to mention the sawdust. But the sawdust can be sold to horsie people.


----------



## Wood Doctor (Oct 12, 2009)

Coldfront said:


> The whole thing is about the amount of air gaps between the pieces. Unsplit wood takes up a smaller space. It was probably said already. Take a 16" round that just fits inside a 5 gal. bucket, then split the piece in 4 and try and fit it back into the bucket, it can't be done.


+1. That's the bottom line. It reminds me of my carrots and potatoes post. Now multiply the buckets by 100 for a truckload. Has anybody got the picture? If not, then go out and do it sometime.

Hey wait a minute. Maybe the trees have *super thick bark* and wood splitters throw all of that "useless" bark away after splitting big logs. So, they think that (stacked round billet volume) > (stacked split wood volume) - (bark volume + waste shrapnel) .

Maybe that's it. Gasp! Lots of bark falls off wood when split dry.

If thick bark volume plus lots of shrapnel is huge, then perhaps it's a wash. 

Curly et al., we may have to consider this.


----------



## camoman (Oct 12, 2009)

This is how I get the most out of the bush as I can in a load..

I try make them 8ft and leave the gate open. I stack them high enough that I can strap them down. Easy to load this way as well.. I simply take my picaroon and drag them to the truck, lift one end up and go around the back and lift the other end while pushing. 

works for me.. still want a wood hauling trailer tho.


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Oct 12, 2009)

camoman said:


> This is how I get the most out of the bush as I can in a load.



What kind off tree is that on your truck?.....reminds me about birch back in Sweden......opcorn:


----------



## camoman (Oct 12, 2009)

AKKAMAAN said:


> What kind off tree is that on your truck?.....reminds me about birch back in Sweden......opcorn:



Mostly poplar.. thats the majority of the trees around these parts. I also burn jackpine and tamarak in colder months.
Thing I hate about poplar is the amount of ash it leaves.. constantly emptying my can...


----------



## camoman (Oct 12, 2009)

How much wood do you figure I have on the back of my truck in those pics? I was thinking damn near a cord??


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Oct 12, 2009)

camoman said:


> How much wood do you figure I have on the back of my truck in those pics? I was thinking damn near a cord??



short bed truck+tailgate= 8ft logs
bed width...5'2" minus wheel house space...I count 4.7ft
height about 2.5 ft
thats a 94 ft^3 box with wood

probobly about 50% bark and air....or 35% air...

anyway I guesstimate it to...hmmmm...81.5 ft^3
which is 81.5/128 cords=*0.637 cords with all bark left on logs* final answer


----------



## Mike PA (Oct 13, 2009)

Curlycherry1 said:


> Actually no. First law of firewood dynamics (patterned after the first law of thermodynamics), "Firewood is neither created or destroyed while splitting."
> 
> Splitting does not create wood, it just rearranges the density per unit area the wood can occupy. So if you put it in a tank of water, rounds and the splits would displace exactly the same amount of water.



The water idea works, but not as described. There is more air space (porosity) in the split wood than the rounds. Therefore, a cord of split wood would hold more water than a cord of rounds. You've got the right idea with density, as there is less mass in the split stack, therefore the density of the cord is less.


----------



## Wood Doctor (Oct 13, 2009)

Mike PA said:


> The water idea works, but not as described. There is more air space (porosity) in the split wood than the rounds. Therefore, a cord of split wood would hold more water than a cord of rounds. You've got the right idea with density, as there is less mass in the split stack, therefore the density of the cord is less.


Bottom line is the volume of bark and the waste pieces that the splitter leaves behind. If the bark and the chips are thrown away when splitting dry wood, then the split firewood stack that is barkless will just about equal the volume of the big rounds that came in on the truck with the bark intact. 

Most of the the bark on dry wood falls off as the rounds are split. Some save the bark and the chips it for kindling. Some don't.


----------



## Snowchief (Oct 13, 2009)

GREAT SCOTT!

Excellent work Curlycherry, I am a doubter no more. You have tested the practical worst case, thank you.


----------



## turnkey4099 (Oct 14, 2009)

Mike PA said:


> The water idea works, but not as described. There is more air space (porosity) in the split wood than the rounds. Therefore, a cord of split wood would hold more water than a cord of rounds. You've got the right idea with density, as there is less mass in the split stack, therefore the density of the cord is less.



Looks to me he has it right. He is not talking about how much volume the split vs round would occupy. He is talking about how much water it would displace. Both would displace the same amount, ignoring of course how much more the splits would 'absorb'.

Take one stick say 1 cu ft and drop it in water. Assuming it sank it would displace 1 cu ft of water. Cut it up into, say, 9 pieces and drop them in. Again if they sank, they would isplace 1 cu ft but would occupy more space.

Harry K


----------



## Mike PA (Oct 14, 2009)

Curly has it right, but the guy he was responding to did not. That's what I was refering to, but my quote didn't include wdchuckss quote. The original question is to see how much volume split v. unsplit would occupy. You are right, the wood displaces the same amount of water. However, to prove in another way which volume would be larger, fill both stacks with water and measure how much water is required to fill both stacks.


----------



## jooky (Apr 18, 2021)

So to sum up this super old thread. 
leave 80-90% in rounds 
split some to fill any air gaps as you load rounds


----------



## Wood Doctor (Apr 18, 2021)

Maybe we need to get back to basics. If you pack unsplit wood tight in a pickup truck as much as it can hold. unload it and then split it all, you will never get all those splits back into the same truck as one load. About 15% of the original volume will not fit.


----------



## Del_ (Apr 18, 2021)

jooky said:


> So to sum up this super old thread.
> leave 80-90% in rounds
> split some to fill any air gaps as you load rounds



Yes, that is the way to get the most wood in a truck bed. 

Welcome to the site.


----------



## Wood Doctor (Apr 19, 2021)

Here's another tip, similar to Jooky's. After cutting down a tree, buck everything to log length (say 16" to 18"). Now load the truck with the big rounds first. Pack all the voids (air gaps) that you can with branches that are also cut to length. That load will contain a lot more wood that anything already split. So, be careful that your truck is not overloaded. I did that with black locust and my truck never forgave me.


----------



## mountainguyed67 (Apr 20, 2021)

Curlycherry1 said:


> Nobody ever packs it as tight as Mother Nature my dad always said.



Egg zactly!

There‘s no way you’re competing with the mass in these rounds. And as far as the voids, you can put small stuff that just fits there.


----------



## Sandhill Crane (Apr 21, 2021)

Wow! Curly Cherry, 2009.
I did an experiment based off his cut dowels in his shop.
In real life, I stacked two 1/3 cord racks side by side and several feet apart with two cord of 100" logs.
Basically 8' x 8' x 4' high.
I cut them into rounds and stacked them in 1/3 cord racks for a considerable loss, less than two cords.
I no longer have the numbers, but something like four and a half of the 1/3 cord racks of stacked rounds.
Then I split them and stacked again, for a gain over the stacked rounds, and if I remember right, about a 2/3rds loss in a 1/3 cord rack shy of two full cord.
From log to round, a loss.
From round to split, a gain.
From log to split, a loss.
Edit: added photos but I no longer have the numbers to go with them.


----------

