# True or False??? A cord of rounds...



## wishiwasdiving (Jun 30, 2010)

If you start with a "full cord of rounds" 4x4x8, and split them, your finished product will be smaller than the cord of rounds you started with? (The smaller you split, the more wood is in an actual measured cord?)


----------



## smokinj (Jun 30, 2010)

If you where going down to a tooth pic size than the answer is yes, But a normal firewood stacking you will have more......And some stackers are better than others so this will change depending on the stacker.


----------



## ckliff (Jun 30, 2010)

sorta TRUE - depends on how ya stack 'em.

Neat & Tight - lots more.

Sloppy - maybe less.


----------



## peterc38 (Jun 30, 2010)

Curlycherry will be along to explain this at some point! opcorn:


Aw heck, why wait, just check out post #39 in this thread.

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=110955&page=3&highlight=curlycherry


----------



## Wood Doctor (Jun 30, 2010)

wishiwasdiving said:


> If you start with a "full cord of rounds" 4x4x8, and split them, your finished product will be smaller than the cord of rounds you started with? (The smaller you split, the more wood is in an actual measured cord?)



(1) Take a bunch of raw carrots, cross cut them into 2" to 3" lengths and pack them into an ordinary Mason jar.

(2) Dump them out and slice them all along their length into quarters, sixths, and/or eighths like French fries. Use a French fry slicer if you have one.

You will never get the carrots back into that same jar. Case dismnissed.


----------



## bluestem (Jul 1, 2010)

:agree2: Bingo!


----------



## WidowMaker (Jul 1, 2010)

How come when I dig a fence post hole, put in a post and refill with the dirt from the hole there is never enough dirt to refill the hole completely???



Damm I don't belive it, I just switched on the heat pump...


----------



## Wood Doctor (Jul 1, 2010)

*Yet Another "real world" Example*

The carrot model predicts well, but my buddy and I tried the real thing. I filled my Ranger truck with the side boards in place with big rounds mounded up about cab high and carried them to his empty truck where the splitter was waiting.

We split all of the rounds into logs and started packing my truck back up. After filling mine to the brim and then some, we still almost filled his Ranger half full with the remaining split logs. And, that was after about half of the bark fell off that we threw into sacks for kindling.


----------



## DJ4wd (Jul 1, 2010)

I really appreciate Woodbooga taking the time to cut up all those dowel rods and re-stack them again. I just don't see a huge amount of difference,but then again with my own wood I try (try being the key word) to stack what we call all nighters in with the split stuff so as the stack goes down we get night wood without making it another pile.
Of course I don't stack mine in a building of any kind I use a tarp so room isn't a concern.


----------



## woodhounder (Jul 1, 2010)

I agree with Wood Doctor. If you split a cord of rounds, you will not get them back to the same size. You will have more wood.


----------



## woodbooga (Jul 1, 2010)

DJ4wd said:


> I really appreciate Woodbooga taking the time to cut up all those dowel rods and re-stack them again. I just don't see a huge amount of difference,but then again with my own wood I try (try being the key word) to stack what we call all nighters in with the split stuff so as the stack goes down we get night wood without making it another pile.
> Of course I don't stack mine in a building of any kind I use a tarp so room isn't a concern.



I'd love to take credit for that experiment, but I can't. That was CurlyCherry.

I'm of the opinion that the more a round is split, the more volume is needed to store the split wood.

This time of year, I'm dealing with a lot of folks buying camp wood for their second homes. Not real woodburners per se. They like allotta small stuff that "catches easy." Kind of difficult explaining that they're getting less wood when it's split real small the way they like it.


----------



## cat-face timber (Jul 1, 2010)

Splitting firewood is just like that.
If you have a pickup all you can hold with rounds, you split them, you have the same wood (minus bark/splinters), it just takes more space to hold it.
It will even weigh less as you take the bark off ect...


----------



## Slick (Jul 1, 2010)

I always thought one of the easiest analogies to picture was from...EricJeep I think? not sure....but imagine taking a round that fits perfectly in a 5 gallon buck....now split it and try to put it back in....good luck, not going to happen


----------



## banshee67 (Jul 1, 2010)

Slick said:


> I always thought one of the easiest analogies to picture was from...EricJeep I think? not sure....but imagine taking a round that fits perfectly in a 5 gallon buck....now split it and try to put it back in....good luck, not going to happen



but trailers are square, not round
and wood is round, not square


----------



## Slick (Jul 1, 2010)

banshee67 said:


> but trailers are square, not round
> and wood is round, not square



Huh? ....fact is when you split a round of wood, it "grows" or takes up more space....


----------



## banshee67 (Jul 1, 2010)

Slick said:


> Huh? ....fact is when you split a round of wood, it "grows" or takes up more space....



i know


----------



## wishiwasdiving (Jul 1, 2010)

*Thanks for the posts!*

Your replys were all great! Especially the thread about Ken and Barbie and there divorse!!! I didn't know thiss was such a hot topic. 
So now the other question! A couple posts mentioned "propperly stacking" the wood. Is there an industry standard or special technique for how to split and stack a piece of wood? Shape? Size? Positioning? Silly questions but I have to learn it sooner or later.


----------



## Philbert (Jul 1, 2010)

Wood Doctor said:


> (1) Take a bunch of raw carrots, cross cut them into 2" to 3" lengths and pack them into an ordinary Mason jar.
> 
> (2) Dump them out and slice them all along their length into quarters, sixths, and/or eighths like French fries. Use a French fry slicer if you have one.
> 
> You will never get the carrots back into that same jar. Case dismnissed.


 
But if you put them into a blender and make carrot juice . . .


----------



## redprospector (Jul 1, 2010)

wishiwasdiving said:


> Your replys were all great! Especially the thread about Ken and Barbie and there divorse!!! I didn't know thiss was such a hot topic.
> So now the other question! A couple posts mentioned "propperly stacking" the wood. Is there an industry standard or special technique for how to split and stack a piece of wood? Shape? Size? Positioning? Silly questions but I have to learn it sooner or later.



When I was a kid I worked part time stacking wood for an old man (probably about the age I am now). One day he came over and looked at one of my stacks and said' Boy, I don't mind a rabbit running through a stack once in a while. But I don't want the dog to be able to follow it.
I've alway's considered that as a rule of thumb, but I suppose it could be an "industry standard" 

Andy


----------



## rmount (Jul 1, 2010)

> When I was a kid I worked part time stacking wood for an old man (probably about the age I am now). One day he came over and looked at one of my stacks and said' Boy, I don't mind a rabbit running through a stack once in a while. But I don't want the dog to be able to follow it.
> I've alway's considered that as a rule of thumb, but I suppose it could be an "industry standard"
> 
> Andy



My father-in-law (age 82) once told me that a big insult when he was a kid was to say you had been over at someones place watching the rabbits running through their woodpile.


----------



## valekbrothers (Jul 1, 2010)

*Firewood Stacking..*

The "saying" I was taught as a youngster was: You want gaps large enough for a mouse to fit between the pieces of wood, but you want them small enough that the cat can't follow.

Also, when you are stacking the wood, I start with the bottom pieces with the bark side down. All other rows are stacked with the bark side up.
I'm not sure if this actually helps to shed water or not, just the way I have done it for years.......

Hope my 2¢ was worth it.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Jul 1, 2010)

Ahem! Children, do we have to keep going over this? My model studies nailed this myth and showed it to be false. I even shook, rattled, coerced and carefully stacked the pieces in my experiment so as to make the piles as reasonably tight as could be done by normal stacking.

Bottom line is that splitting makes the overall volume of wood grow. Case dismissed. Anyone that still thinks otherwise is going to get a whuppin.


----------



## howellhandmade (Jul 1, 2010)

redprospector said:


> When I was a kid I worked part time stacking wood for an old man (probably about the age I am now). One day he came over and looked at one of my stacks and said' Boy, I don't mind a rabbit running through a stack once in a while. But I don't want the dog to be able to follow it.
> I've alway's considered that as a rule of thumb, but I suppose it could be an "industry standard"
> 
> Andy



Everybody's grandpa used to say stuff like that. But I'd like to see a stack of wood that a dog could run through. Or a cat. Unless the splits are enormous, my feeling is that a stack would stop being a stack a long time before gaps that big were consistently achieved.

Jack


----------



## teatersroad (Jul 1, 2010)

If it's not ready for the woodstove/fireplace, it's not firewood. A cord is a measure of _firewood_, 128cf, tightly stacked. So, unless the rounds are small enough to constitute firewood, the have no business being included in the measure of a 'cord'.

Oil Mix, Cord wood, God, and Politics.


----------



## redprospector (Jul 1, 2010)

howellhandmade said:


> Everybody's grandpa used to say stuff like that. But I'd like to see a stack of wood that a dog could run through. Or a cat. Unless the splits are enormous, my feeling is that a stack would stop being a stack a long time before gaps that big were consistently achieved.
> 
> Jack



The "old man" was exagerating a little to make his point. Did a good job too, 40 years later and I still remember his words. I think it was his way of saying "tighten it up a little boy". I probably wouldn't have remembered that.

Andy


----------



## cowtipper (Jul 2, 2010)

Curlycherry1 said:


> Ahem! Children, do we have to keep going over this? My model studies nailed this myth and showed it to be false. I even shook, rattled, coerced and carefully stacked the pieces in my experiment so as to make the piles as reasonably tight as could be done by normal stacking.
> 
> Bottom line is that splitting makes the overall volume of wood grow. Case dismissed. Anyone that still thinks otherwise is going to get a whuppin.



If I may Curlycherry...  ... the wood is not growing but the space it takes up grows...


----------



## turnkey4099 (Jul 2, 2010)

redprospector said:


> When I was a kid I worked part time stacking wood for an old man (probably about the age I am now). One day he came over and looked at one of my stacks and said' Boy, I don't mind a rabbit running through a stack once in a while. But I don't want the dog to be able to follow it.
> I've alway's considered that as a rule of thumb, but I suppose it could be an "industry standard"
> 
> Andy



The version I have seen in some 'wooding' books is: "Stacked so a mouse can run through it but the cat can't follow"

I'm currently working Black Locust. A cord of rounds aftr splitting will be at least 1 1/4 cord or more. That stuff does not split 'neat' and stacks with lots of air space.

Harry K


----------



## turnkey4099 (Jul 2, 2010)

Curlycherry1 said:


> Ahem! Children, do we have to keep going over this? My model studies nailed this myth and showed it to be false. I even shook, rattled, coerced and carefully stacked the pieces in my experiment so as to make the piles as reasonably tight as could be done by normal stacking.
> 
> Bottom line is that splitting makes the overall volume of wood grow. Case dismissed. Anyone that still thinks otherwise is going to get a whuppin.



Amen! If the moderators would just make that a sticky as more than one person has requested we could quit repeating ourselves every 6 months.
Harry K


----------



## DJ4wd (Jul 2, 2010)

I just turn and reposition each piece so that it fits the best against the others.


----------



## logbutcher (Jul 2, 2010)

Wood Doctor said:


> (1) Take a bunch of raw carrots, cross cut them into 2" to 3" lengths and pack them into an ordinary Mason jar.
> 
> (2) Dump them out and slice them all along their length into quarters, sixths, and/or eighths like French fries. Use a French fry slicer if you have one.
> 
> You will never get the carrots back into that same jar. *Case dismnissed*.



Righto bango.

*1 cord = A PILE/STACK/THING 4' X 4' X 8'*
Case dismissed #2.:agree2: 

Please: no "ricks". No "face" %$#@&s. No "throw" cords. No ""banana" cords. Just a cord relative to what is piled/stacked. No state "regs". You got rounds in a pile 4x4x8...it's a cord. 
You got splits stacked 4x4x8...it's a cord. 
You got moose turds piled 4x4x8...it's a cord (dry 'em out, polish 'em, you got jewelry, no smell unless your significant other gets too hot). 

Kindly refer to past empty discussions on "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot: What is a Cord ? " Thank You...Thank You very much (E. Presley).

JMNSHO


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Jul 2, 2010)

teatersroad said:


> If it's not ready for the woodstove/fireplace, it's not firewood. A cord is a measure of *firewood, *128cf, tightly stacked. So, unless the rounds are small enough to constitute firewood, the have no business being included in the measure of a 'cord'.
> 
> Oil Mix, Cord wood, God, and Politics.



Oh contrare'. A cord is a measure of _*Pulp*_ wood originally, not firewood. It was used to measure pulp wood which was used to make paper long before it was used as a measure of firewood. The 4' length of the pieces was chosen because a man with a pulp hook could spike one end of the log and use his hand on the other and easily toss the log onto a skid or truck for hauling to the mill. Pulp wood back then was pine and so pieces of pine from ~4" to ~15" in diameter and 4' long could be loaded by hand because machinery to move wood was not available. The 4' high by 8' long dimensions were chosen because a good pulp cutter could cut 4 full cords by hand in a day. One in the morning, one in the afternoon. I also heard that the 4' and 8' dimensions were chosen because a cord of pulp wood (pine) weighs just about 1 US ton. Thus it made it easy to guess the weight of a fully loaded truck or train.

The origin of the 4' high by 8' long was told to me by an old pulp cutter so it may or may not be true. The 4' length of the logs is documented in plenty of forestry history pages. 

The important point is that a cord was a measure of pulp wood long before it was


----------



## teatersroad (Jul 2, 2010)

I'll accept that. My point remains the same though. When speaking of measures of firewood.


----------



## redprospector (Jul 2, 2010)

Curlycherry1 said:


> Oh contrare'. A cord is a measure of _*Pulp*_ wood originally, not firewood. It was used to measure pulp wood which was used to make paper long before it was used as a measure of firewood. The 4' length of the pieces was chosen because a man with a pulp hook could spike one end of the log and use his hand on the other and easily toss the log onto a skid or truck for hauling to the mill. Pulp wood back then was pine and so pieces of pine from ~4" to ~15" in diameter and 4' long could be loaded by hand because machinery to move wood was not available. The 4' high by 8' long dimensions were chosen because a good pulp cutter could cut 4 full cords by hand in a day. One in the morning, one in the afternoon. *I also heard that the 4' and 8' dimensions were chosen because a cord of pulp wood (pine) weighs just about 1 US ton. Thus it made it easy to guess the weight of a fully loaded truck or train.*
> 
> The origin of the 4' high by 8' long was told to me by an old pulp cutter so it may or may not be true. The 4' length of the logs is documented in plenty of forestry history pages.
> 
> The important point is that a cord was a measure of pulp wood long before it was



I only found one thing I didn't agree with (I hate it when that happens ). Unless Pine is a lot lighter there than it is here. Ponderosa Pine (around here anyway) weighs on average about 4200 lbs. per cord.
I wish it only weighed 1 ton per cord, because then I could get twice as much on my trailer. But it would probably only be worth half as much then. 

Andy


----------



## komatsuvarna (Jul 2, 2010)

Dont know about anywere else, but the pine here in Tennessee Is probably CLOSE to 1 ton a cord. Definitely not as heavy as ponderosa.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Jul 2, 2010)

redprospector said:


> I only found one thing I didn't agree with (I hate it when that happens ). Unless Pine is a lot lighter there than it is here. Ponderosa Pine (around here anyway) weighs on average about 4200 lbs. per cord.
> I wish it only weighed 1 ton per cord, because then I could get twice as much on my trailer. But it would probably only be worth half as much then.
> 
> Andy



It is ok to disagree. I disagree with your disagreement. My source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html

White pine which is common from where I was from weighs 22-31 pounds per cubic foot. 128*22= 2816 pounds per cord if the wood was 100% solid in the stack. Figuring about 30% air in a stacked cord = 2816*.70% = 1971 pounds per cord. Right about a ton per cord. YMMV. opcorn:


----------



## redprospector (Jul 2, 2010)

Curlycherry1 said:


> It is ok to disagree. I disagree with your disagreement. My source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html
> 
> White pine which is common from where I was from weighs 22-31 pounds per cubic foot. 128*22= 2816 pounds per cord if the wood was 100% solid in the stack. Figuring about 30% air in a stacked cord = 2816*.70% = 1971 pounds per cord. Right about a ton per cord. YMMV. opcorn:



Hmmm. I knew I shouldn't have thrown those scale tickets away. 4200 lbs is fresh cut & green, but if it weighs 2000 lbs or less in the eastern US then it's no wonder you guy's don't like to burn pine. I think cardboard would weigh 2000 lbs per cord. 

Andy


----------



## komatsuvarna (Jul 2, 2010)

redprospector said:


> Hmmm. I knew I shouldn't have thrown those scale tickets away. 4200 lbs is fresh cut & green, but if it weighs 2000 lbs or less in the eastern US then it's no wonder you guy's don't like to burn pine. I think cardboard would weigh 2000 lbs per cord.
> 
> Andy



I take your word for it. The pine we have here is southern yellow pine, and white pine. Neither one as heavy as ponderosa. The white pine is heavier than the yellow. The yellow pine burns good,(and fast) but smokes like crazy. We have a very, very, good supply of hardwoods here and NOBODY burns pine, but you gotta make do with what you have.


----------



## logbutcher (Jul 2, 2010)

1 cord Moose turds. My choice for profundity. Try stacking.

Kindly refer to study authored by Capote, Madaronna, et.al. University of Sakachawaun 1949, 1956, 1971 in the Journal of American Forestry defining The Cord. It is to paraphrase: ".....a pile of wood 4 feet by 4 feet by 8 feet..." 
The End

P.S. This is not a discussion about pulp. Different animal C²1. This a random walk down an internet by those with not much to do. Flames be acomin.

Who Gives a Sierra.


----------



## banshee67 (Jul 2, 2010)

how many pieces of wood are in a chord?


----------



## komatsuvarna (Jul 2, 2010)

banshee67 said:


> how many pieces of wood are in a chord?



:monkey: None. A chord is something in music.


----------



## Philbert (Jul 2, 2010)

banshee67 said:


> how many pieces of wood are in a chord?



How many pieces in a large pizza?


----------



## komatsuvarna (Jul 2, 2010)

Philbert said:


> How many pieces in a large pizza?



2 if you cut it in half, 4 if you cut it in quarters, I cant count any higher.


----------



## STLfirewood (Jul 2, 2010)

banshee67 said:


> how many pieces of wood are in a chord?



On average the way I split it around 950. And yes I have counted it several times.

Scott


----------



## teatersroad (Jul 2, 2010)

Philbert said:


> How many pieces in a large pizza?



shouldn't be any wood in a large Pizza,, i don't think.


----------



## logbutcher (Jul 3, 2010)

teatersroad said:


> shouldn't be any wood in a large Pizza,, i don't think.



Now we're getting to the meat of this "chord" thing.

Question: does Moose methane destroy the planet ? Can Moose droppings be stacked into a cord ?:monkey:

Joyous Fourth all.  Off to play a parade: Stars and Stripes Forever, Washington Post, American Patrol, etc..... Some Downeast towns decided to do the 4th on the 3rd . Another gig I have is tomorrow on the real 4th--Castine, Maine home of Maine Maritime Academy. Anyone coming ?
Not a bad place to live .


----------



## Junkrunner (Jul 3, 2010)

Maybe it's; how many pizzas, in the wood??? Aw heck, i'm really confused now!! I have a 100ft "cord" running a light over my pizza,,,, wood.....:greenchainsaw:


----------



## WOODHOGG (Oct 22, 2010)

turnkey4099 said:


> The version I have seen in some 'wooding' books is: "Stacked so a mouse can run through it but the cat can't follow"
> 
> I'm currently working Black Locust. A cord of rounds aftr splitting will be at least 1 1/4 cord or more. That stuff does not split 'neat' and stacks with lots of air space.
> 
> Harry K



Hi,Harry K, here in the state of washington the power's to be came up with the
idea that firewood loosely thrown into a truck is equal to 192 cu.ft. 
When my son wanted to start selling firewood,i took a piece of plywood 4x8 and
layed it on the and we stacked wood on it to see how much area it would fill
up in a pick-up truck still not sure. The only thing that i know is if you stack fir that split's nice and neat is the only wood that you can get a perfect cord of out of it,if you try maple,black locust,oak which all split badly
i think you will be using your imagination as to how much firewood you have
maybe that is why we have the 192cu.ft. idea here and you still maybe wrong


----------



## logbutcher (Oct 22, 2010)

WidowMaker said:


> How come when I dig a fence post hole, put in a post and refill with the dirt from the hole there is never enough dirt to refill the hole completely???
> Damm I don't belive it, I just switched on the heat pump...



Diddling over this query while diddling here.

Yes Virginia, there is a rationale for the "no fill" hole you have. Like the "more wood when split and stacked" proven science, the dirt undisturbed in your hole ( pleeeease, no comments from you dirty minds ) is compacted similar to the log rounds. When you excavate said hole you are DE-compacting the earth. When the aired dirt is piled it will have more volume. 

As Curley says: "case proven".

And, please, step away from the heat pump ! :jawdrop:


----------



## slofr8 (Oct 22, 2010)

Curlycherry1 said:


> Oh contrare'. A cord is a measure of _*Pulp*_ wood originally, not firewood. It was used to measure pulp wood which was used to make paper long before it was used as a measure of firewood. The 4' length of the pieces was chosen because a man with a pulp hook could spike one end of the log and use his hand on the other and easily toss the log onto a skid or truck for hauling to the mill. Pulp wood back then was pine and so pieces of pine from ~4" to ~15" in diameter and 4' long could be loaded by hand because machinery to move wood was not available. The 4' high by 8' long dimensions were chosen because a good pulp cutter could cut 4 full cords by hand in a day. One in the morning, one in the afternoon. I also heard that the 4' and 8' dimensions were chosen because a cord of pulp wood (pine) weighs just about 1 US ton. Thus it made it easy to guess the weight of a fully loaded truck or train.
> 
> The origin of the 4' high by 8' long was told to me by an old pulp cutter so it may or may not be true. The 4' length of the logs is documented in plenty of forestry history pages.
> 
> The important point is that a cord was a measure of pulp wood long before it was



Old pulp cutter once told me they would place the bottom row angled slightly and angle the next row slightly the other way. Angle left, angle right and so on. Thus, the wood sat on the top, or high point of the sticks under it and not in the "valley". He claimed it would make quite a difference by the end of the week. Providing the scaler didn't catch on that is.
Dan.


----------



## johncinco (Oct 22, 2010)

[QUOTE
This time of year, I'm dealing with a lot of folks buying camp wood for their second homes. Not real woodburners per se. They like allotta small stuff that "catches easy." Kind of difficult explaining that they're getting less wood when it's split real small the way they like it.[/QUOTE]

Thats called profit margin. Or, increased surplus replacement for excess labor expense. You are compensated as the seller or manufacturer for your additional labor of splitting, by delivering less actual product to the buyer. 

Dang, I knew that MBA would pay off some day!


----------



## johncinco (Oct 22, 2010)

STLfirewood said:


> On average the way I split it around 950. And yes I have counted it several times.
> 
> Scott




Seek therapy. 

Actually, I always say you never see a motorcycle parked outside a psychiatrists office. I guess I'd also have to say you never see a truck loaded with saws and firewood outside one either.


----------



## STLfirewood (Oct 22, 2010)

johncinco said:


> Seek therapy.
> 
> Actually, I always say you never see a motorcycle parked outside a psychiatrists office. I guess I'd also have to say you never see a truck loaded with saws and firewood outside one either.




By counting it here and there it keeps me from having to stack the wood. If I stack a couple cords and count I know what my pile is averaging. So when I get to a customer that just wants the wood tossed off I count out the number of pieces and toss another 15 or so. I always know I am covered. 

Scott


----------



## SpiralAcacia (Oct 22, 2010)

Well me and my firewood buddy are selling a few cords as it has been a prosperous year.
Selling mostly to friends and neighbours, we wanted to make sure no-one feels cheated, so we came up with a way to be as accurate as can be while still practical.
Here in The Land the measure goes by the "Cube" which is short for a cubic meter. I think it's about 1/4 cord.
So we measured the trailer we deliver with, figured out how tall we fill it to get 1 or 2 "cubes" of TRAILER volume.
Then we told every buyer they get the firewood measured like that, take it or leave it. Told them to EXPECT it to be LESS than a "cube" when stacked.
You know what?
After our 1st and 2nd deliveries we got so many calls asking to buy wood...
Shows you people buying firewood are used to getting nailed...
That's why I got my saw: Bought a load of wood and couldn't believe the guy didn't blink an eye when saying this is a "cube". I said, well thank you and 
|
|//////////> YOU!!
|
And got my saw....

SA


----------



## SpiralAcacia (Dec 14, 2010)

I believe the subject of small scale firewood business was already addressed by curlycherry:
Here

SA


----------



## logbutcher (Dec 14, 2010)

Curlycherry1 said:


> *Oh contrare'*. A cord is a measure of _*Pulp*_ wood originally, not firewood. It was used to measure pulp wood which was used to make paper long before it was used as a measure of firewood. The 4' length of the pieces was chosen because a man with a pulp hook could spike one end of the log and use his hand on the other and easily toss the log onto a skid or truck for hauling to the mill. Pulp wood back then was pine and so pieces of pine from ~4" to ~15" in diameter and 4' long could be loaded by hand because machinery to move wood was not available. The 4' high by 8' long dimensions were chosen because a good pulp cutter could cut 4 full cords by hand in a day. One in the morning, one in the afternoon. I also heard that the 4' and 8' dimensions were chosen because a cord of pulp wood (pine) weighs just about 1 US ton. Thus it made it easy to guess the weight of a fully loaded truck or train.
> 
> The origin of the 4' high by 8' long was told to me by an old pulp cutter so it may or may not be true. The 4' length of the logs is documented in plenty of forestry history pages.
> 
> The important point is that a cord was a measure of pulp wood long before it was



Msr C² (a.k.a. "Curley Cherry") has it. Listen and watch and learn. 

C² is Msr. Science who has spent the better part of his life instructing lesser mortals on the facts of CORD.

To de-brief and simplify for Darwins in NeverLand:

One CORD is a pile/stack of wood in ANY form, piled/stacked in ANY manner that measures 4' X 4' X 8' ---that is, a pile or stack containing 128 cubic feet of volume . There are (except in metrically challenged nations such as north of the United States ), no other acceptable definition. 

Any other expanation will be cause for serious punishment and/or banishment from the internet. C² will be the ultimate arbiter of the severity.

Just one tiny point C² with extreme respect for your acumen : it is "au contraire". The French among us will be displeased if you use it any other way. They are, shall we say, very French.


----------



## Cerran (Dec 14, 2010)

logbutcher said:


> Righto bango.
> 
> *1 cord = A PILE/STACK/THING 4' X 4' X 8'*
> Case dismissed #2.:agree2:
> ...



Actually a cord is wood tightly stacked 4 x 4 x 8, not piled.



I don't like Wikipedia much but this pretty much sums it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_(unit)

The US weights and measure department defines it clearly as 4 x 4 x 8 tightly stacked for firewood.


----------



## indiansprings (Dec 14, 2010)

I just think that anyone who has to ask the question needs to come on over to my place and practice splitting and stacking firewood to test all the possible theories. After about 20 cord or so I think you might have it figured out.lol
IMHO split wood will take up more volume, because you can never stack it as tight as rounds if we're discussing normal firewood splits. The "air gaps" are just something you have to deal with when stacking. That is why we always stack to 52" high rather than 48", it gives the customer confidence that they are getting their monies worth and they always repeat their business.


----------



## Gypo Logger (Dec 14, 2010)

If you were to take a full cord of smoked bacon slabs and cut it into 1/8" strips, how many one pound packages of bacon would you get?
How much volume/weight would bacon lose once it has been smoked?

As far as firewood is concerned a cord of 16" hardwood cut and plit to heat your house contains 333 pieces of wood accurate to +- 10%. Fact.
John


----------



## Gypo Logger (Dec 14, 2010)

Philbert said:


> How many pieces in a large pizza?


 Philbert, I don't think the the question is, 'how many pieces are in a pizza', the question is: How many thick crust party pizzas are in a cord?
If one TCPP is 36"x 24" x 2" thick that's 1728 cubic inches right per party pizza, so how my pizzas would be in a cord allowing for some shrinkage and settling due to late delivery?
John


----------



## logbutcher (Dec 14, 2010)

Cerran said:


> Actually a cord is wood tightly stacked 4 x 4 x 8, not piled.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_(unit)
> 
> The US weights and measure department defines it *clearly* as 4 x 4 x 8 tightly stacked for firewood.



Au contraire Cerran. The measure called CORD is universally a stack, a pile of round logs, used for pulp, delivered as such to paper mills. 

Forget Wiki ( anyone can define anything there), forget "US Weights and Measures Department" (they got bureaucratic hemorroids sitting in those offices). "Clearly" be damned. :chainsawguy:

In the real world (I am not opinionated, I am not opinionated.......) one CANNOT "tightly stack" a pile of logs. How the F wood :biggrinbounce2: you ? Round logs that are piled or stacked weigh enought to stack by themselves. Sorry, "pile".

Firewood "cords" were taken from the real definition of pulp measure. Firewood cords can be split, round, fractioned split and round, and any other GD way the firewood CORD stacker/piler wants it.

Now, wood you please re-read C² 's definition like Mr. Rogers' scientific demo of a cord ?

Whew...................................


----------



## ryan_marine (Dec 14, 2010)

I tried to read most replies to this. I have always been able to toss loose a truck load of rounds and not be able to fill it after I split it. I hate to take the splitter to the woods. I don't want to hijack this thread but I keep seeing 4'x4'x8' is a cord. But am I right saying and measurement that equals 128 cubic feet is a cord? Say 3'x3'x14'4"? That is 128 cubic feet. I like this web site to measure a cord:
http://metrology.burtini.ca/calc_fire.html

Ray


----------



## banshee67 (Dec 14, 2010)

ryan_marine said:


> I tried to read most replies to this. I have always been able to toss loose a truck load of rounds and not be able to fill it after I split it. I hate to take the splitter to the woods. I don't want to hijack this thread but I keep seeing 4'x4'x8' is a cord. But am I right saying and measurement that equals 128 cubic feet is a cord? Say 3'x3'x14'4"? That is 128 cubic feet. I like this web site to measure a cord:
> http://metrology.burtini.ca/calc_fire.html
> 
> Ray



of course, you are right, anything that equals 128cu.ft. of wood is a cord, 
one time when a first time customer said "just so you know, i know a cord is "4by4by8""
i answered (nicely.. kind of jokingly) "a cord of wood is 128 cubic feet of wood, you can stack it any way youd like after i drop it off" umpkin2:


----------



## chowdozer (Dec 15, 2010)

logbutcher said:


> Firewood "cords" were taken from the real definition of pulp measure. Firewood cords can be split, round, fractioned split and round, and any other GD way the firewood CORD stacker/piler wants it.



Is it your contention a 4'x4'x8' stack of firewood stacked like this:






Is equivalent to a 4'x4'x8' stack of wood stacked like this:






Try to sell a cord 4'x4'x8' in the state of Washington stacked like the latter, and you will get a visit by the sheriff, you may get a free trip to jail. Persist and your business will be no more. On the bright side, when they shut down your business, you'll have lots of time to argue. So there really isn't an argument.


----------



## turnkey4099 (Dec 15, 2010)

logbutcher said:


> Au contraire Cerran. The measure called CORD is universally a stack, a pile of round logs, used for pulp, delivered as such to paper mills.
> 
> Forget Wiki ( anyone can define anything there), forget "US Weights and Measures Department" (they got bureaucratic hemorroids sitting in those offices). "Clearly" be damned. :chainsawguy:
> 
> ...



Odd. In the real world firewood was being measured by the cord way before anyone even heard of pulp wood.

Tightly stacked does _not_ mean with no air spaces. One explanation was "stacked so a mouse can run through it but the cat can't follow". See teh picture of a "tightly stacked' rick just above. That one is stacked even tighter than is really required. Mosst piles will not have all those little sticks in it.

Harry K


----------



## PLMCRZY (Dec 15, 2010)

WidowMaker said:


> How come when I dig a fence post hole, put in a post and refill with the dirt from the hole there is never enough dirt to refill the hole completely???
> 
> 
> 
> Damm I don't belive it, I just switched on the heat pump...



A guy i used to work with told me its because of the moon. Sometimes you will have plenty, or not enough.....


----------



## logbutcher (Dec 15, 2010)

chowdozer said:


> Is it your contention a 4'x4'x8' stack of firewood stacked like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now the truth boy: do you actually know a case whereupon this happened ? No heresay, real. The truth.



turnkey4099 said:


> Odd. In the real world firewood was being measured by the cord way before anyone even heard of pulp wood.
> 
> Tightly stacked does _not_ mean with no air spaces. One explanation was "stacked so a mouse can run through it but the cat can't follow". See teh picture of a "tightly stacked' rick just above. That one is stacked even tighter than is really required. Mosst piles will not have all those little sticks in it.
> 
> Harry K



Now Harry, where were you when this happened ? Was the mouse a fattie ?Odd is right. The truth. You actually know those who had not heard of pulp wood ? :newbie:

So ladies and gentlemen of the jury, here we have two ( "2" ) examples of myth. My case stands.


----------



## turnkey4099 (Dec 15, 2010)

logbutcher said:


> Now the truth boy: do you actually know a case whereupon this happened ? No heresay, real. The truth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



REad Tom sawyer. That definition is in there. I don't think anyone was cutting pulp wood back in those days (cords also mentioned in that bood) or even back in the original 13 colonies. I have seen historical references to using 20 and more "cords" per winter in those cabins heated with nothing but a big fireplace.

Yes, people cut wood back before modern chainsaws, pulp mills, etc. were ever even dreamed of.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-cord-of-wood.htm

excerpt
-----------------

The concept of a cord of wood emerged in the 17th century, when stacks of wood were literally measured with a cord. The standardized measure was supposed to make it easier for people to buy and sell wood, by creating a unit of measurement which reflected the most common configuration of wood. From the beginning, though, the measurement of a cord of wood fluctuated, as it can be influenced by how the wood is stacked and handled, gaining or losing as much as 10% of its volume.
---------------------------------

I have seen that reference to a standard length of a cord used to measure it with before in other places.


Now when you guys can come up with a creditable cite showing that 'cord' only started after pulpwood came along...

Harry K


----------



## olyman (Dec 15, 2010)

logbutcher said:


> Now the truth boy: do you actually know a case whereupon this happened ? No heresay, real. The truth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yeeess!!!!!


----------



## turnkey4099 (Dec 15, 2010)

olyman said:


> yeeess!!!!!



Noooo! Are you _ever_ going to contribute anything useful to _any_ thread? I know you are mentally challenged but youdon't need to work so hard to prove it.

Harry K


----------



## logbutcher (Dec 15, 2010)

OK OK. 
So no fattie mice. Fine. 
How about those NW sherrifs that love donuts passing through the stack ? Will that satisfy your cord definition ? :hmm3grin2orange:

Now if you're going to do the "I read it on the internet so it has to be true" thing, then we have a bridge to sell you out there in NeverLand.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, who the H is this "Tom Sawyer" ? Some PNW logger ?:hmm3grin2orange: Guess, too many of us are "mentally challenged" Samuel Langhorne Clemens (!). No definition of cord in that tome.

Case rests.


----------



## chowdozer (Dec 15, 2010)

logbutcher said:


> Now the truth boy: do you actually know a case whereupon this happened ? No heresay, real. The truth.



I asked if the pictures are equivalent 4'x4'x8' cords of wood.

You did not answer.

Also, you may take note every state has a Department of Weights and Measures that defines under what unit of measure commodities will be sold. Firewood is a commodity. 

Further, if you want to do your research, you will find numerous cases of people selling a 'cord of wood' which is not actually a cord. Check with your state Attorney Generals Office. Happens far to often. 

Once again, you don't have an argument.


----------



## turnkey4099 (Dec 16, 2010)

logbutcher said:


> OK OK.
> So no fattie mice. Fine.
> How about those NW sherrifs that love donuts passing through the stack ? Will that satisfy your cord definition ? :hmm3grin2orange:
> 
> ...



PS: Tom Sawyer is part of the title of the book. For the mentally challenged like you admit to, the AUTHOR was Samuel Clemens.

"no definition of cord..."

Care to prove that? I may have the wrong story. "cord" is mentioned when he was learning to run a riverboat in reference to buying cordwood to run the boilers. I recall the definition I quoted as being in that. Could be wrong.

So you can't come up with a cite that "cord" started after pulp wood. What a surprise.

Harry K

Harry K


----------



## logbutcher (Dec 16, 2010)

turnkey4099 said:


> PS: Tom Sawyer is part of the title of the book. For the mentally challenged like you admit to, the AUTHOR was Samuel Clemens.
> 
> "no definition of cord..."
> 
> ...



#1. Author was "Samuel Langhorne Clemens". Get it right boy.

#2. Repeat ad nauseum : 1 CORD = one pile/stack/ka-ka that measures
4' X 4' X 8' . Or, for the mathematically inclined (on their a$$) ,
a volume of piled/stacked/ka-ka'ed wood that measures 128 CUBIC 
FEET.

#3. You want "cite" ? "We don need no stinkin' 'cite' "

#4. Yes, you're wrong.

#5. In the real plane of existence, BOTH of your lovely pics ARE cords. Fattie mouse and all.

The End. Case rests your honors.


----------



## lone wolf (Dec 16, 2010)

WidowMaker said:


> How come when I dig a fence post hole, put in a post and refill with the dirt from the hole there is never enough dirt to refill the hole completely???
> 
> 
> 
> Damm I don't belive it, I just switched on the heat pump...



Cause you aint picking 100 percent of it back up.


----------



## bert the turtle (Dec 16, 2010)

I don't know much about the pacific northwest. Here in NC, a legal cord is defined as : Cord. "Cord" when used in connection with purchases of wood is a quantity of wood consisting of any number of sticks, bolts or pieces laid parallel and together so as to form a rick or stack occupying a space four feet wide, four feet high and eight feet long, or such other dimensions that will when multiplied together equal 128 cubic feet by volume, construed as being seventy percent (70%) solid and thirty percent (30%) air space or 90 solid cubic feet.

The crossed drying stack would not be a legal cord in this state. Although mice vs. cats are not defined, it does define how much has to be solid vs air space.


----------



## turnkey4099 (Dec 16, 2010)

logbutcher said:


> #1. Author was "Samuel Langhorne Clemens". Get it right boy.
> 
> Get it right, it was Mark Twain. At least that is how the cover reads.
> 
> ...



You didn't need to prove you are mentally challenged.

The point is "where does the measurement "cord" come from. I proved it came into being long before pulp wood was even dreamed of.

If you retards can come up with a cite showing it is only since cord wood I will retract my historical cite.


Harry K


----------



## ray benson (Dec 16, 2010)

Ran across this:



Word Origin & History 
cord 
c.1300, from O.Fr. corde , from L. chorda "string, gut," from Gk. khorde "string, catgut, chord, cord," from PIE base *gher- "intestine." As a measure of wood (eight feet long, four feet high and wide) first recorded 1610s, so called because it was measured with a cord of rope. 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cord


----------



## Gypo Logger (Dec 16, 2010)

ray benson said:


> Ran across this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's good factual info Ray, Thanks.
I originally thought the term cord came from the forest industry as in:
'When the woodcutter got injured, it was as though he had struck a cord.'
John


----------



## logbutcher (Dec 16, 2010)

turnkey4099 said:


> You didn't need to prove you are mentally challenged.
> The point is "where does the measurement "cord" come from. I proved it came into being long before pulp wood was even dreamed of.
> If you retards can come up with a cite showing it is only since cord wood I will retract my historical cite.
> Harry K



Harry Harry Harry, are you having a time out ? Yes, we're all retards at some time, butt you're getting heavy on this "mentally challenged" stuff.:deadhorse:

Sorry you sound like you're being shut out at home, butt we're just poor slobs eaking out a tough life. Easy now on us. Easy. Back off.

Frankly, I could give a rat's a$$ what anyone thinks a cord is, or WTF a "cite" is is. I know. Like ####, you know a cord when you see it. (Mark Twain, or maybe Truman Capote ?) 

Whatever...........................


----------



## woodbooga (Dec 16, 2010)

turnkey4099 said:


> Odd. In the real world firewood was being measured by the cord way before anyone even heard of pulp wood.



LB-

I do believe that this is a good point worth consideration.

Pulp paper technology dates to ...what, ca. 1870 or '80.

The measurement seems to have a half millennium head start. I thought your initial point was a good one. For the sake of discussion, perhaps a slighly more nuanced explanation might be in order.

I do believe that at some point the accepted cord measurement was conjoined in a novel way with the needs of a nascent paper industry in plan]cec like Berlin, NH and Millinockett, Me.


----------



## redheadwoodshed (Dec 16, 2010)

WidowMaker said:


> How come when I dig a fence post hole, put in a post and refill with the dirt from the hole there is never enough dirt to refill the hole completely???
> 
> 
> 
> Damm I don't belive it, I just switched on the heat pump...



You need to check the farmers almanac and see what days are best for setting post.You will have more than enough on the right day


----------



## turnkey4099 (Dec 17, 2010)

logbutcher said:


> Harry Harry Harry, are you having a time out ? Yes, we're all retards at some time, butt you're getting heavy on this "mentally challenged" stuff.:deadhorse:
> 
> Sorry you sound like you're being shut out at home, butt we're just poor slobs eaking out a tough life. Easy now on us. Easy. Back off.
> 
> ...



Well when you make a claim, it is challenged and proven to be wrong and you continue your uncivil ways what did you expect? If you want a civilised discussion I suggest you change your way of initiating one.

Harry K


----------



## turnkey4099 (Dec 17, 2010)

woodbooga said:


> LB-
> 
> I do believe that this is a good point worth consideration.
> 
> ...



Dunno. I thought the paper industry may have taken it over from the 'cordwood' industry of suppling to the steam engines (both rail and boat) where they cut it in 4' long. Does make for convenient handling, loading, hauling and fire feeding of steam engines.

Harry K


----------



## logbutcher (Dec 17, 2010)

turnkey4099 said:


> Well when you make a claim, it is challenged and proven to be wrong and you continue your uncivil ways what did you expect? If you want a civilised discussion I suggest you change your way of initiating one.
> 
> Harry K



OK Harry, get some sleep. I am rebuked. I will change. I will change. I wil....
....and frankly, I don't give a damn. You want the cord cite, you got it. :hmm3grin2orange:
Now, get some sleep Harry. And, less time online ?


----------



## turnkey4099 (Dec 18, 2010)

What! Less time on AS? That's heresy!!

Harry K


----------

