What is a cord
- Thread starter Chiphaller
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Pythagorus
ArboristSite Lurker
.IIn theory you are correct wouln't be worrying about neurotic aspects. of weight. Wood properly collected and sold is dried for say 3 years..
And neither is a legal definition.
Pythagorus
ArboristSite Lurker
The term 'facve' cord is not an accepted term..There's a definiton of 'cord' the rest of it is fanatsy...dreamed up by someone, somewhere.
Pythagorus
ArboristSite Lurker
I understand perfectly I thnink, what he wrote..an argument about what actually constitutes a 'cord'...it doesn't matter what is said even by narcissists given control of nations there'll always be an argument and 'you're fired' doesn't actually resolve it. "Not understanding" is a form of rejection which may not be the fault of the proposer. . What 'he' said is correct and what you said is correct but who gives a toss about 'cord' when it has a definition but is almost impossible to guarantee. ...and is as written by another here, a con-job in some cases. Only when agreement has been reached on what 'is' a cord of wood and people comply with both definiiton and intention of it in supply does it have any practical meaning.
Pythagorus
ArboristSite Lurker
Ok...that's an 'electric cord'..in an unsafe condtion...
New and uninstalled isn’t unsafe.
Pythagorus
ArboristSite Lurker
Yes you are right...another example, on my property are huge morell mushrooms...sold 'as is' $42/kilo....sold sliced in small packs...$1200/kilo.
Pythagorus
ArboristSite Lurker
Actually it is definably unsafe ...'plugged in' we would be talking of 'risk.
It’s a new cord to be installed into an appliance, there’s no reason to plug it in like it is. Sheesh!
And plus the humor went over your head.
Happytoserve
New Member
Here in Inverness Indiana a cord is 4 feet tall x 4 feet wide x 8 feet long. A rank is 4’ x 8’ x 16“. And 3 ranks = 1 cord. 1 rank is about a long bed level pickup truck load. A rick of wood is a pile of firewood. Big pile + little pile= 2 ricks. Weight is determined by type of wood. A cord of box elder should be considerably cheaper than hickory. However green wood and dry wood of same type could be same price but different weight. Over on the next road the fellow sales from ricks. Big piles, nothing measure, just loads whatever and prices fairly from a camp bundle to a dump trailer. You get what you get and wont throw a fit because its a good deal! 
Pythagorus
ArboristSite Lurker
My last attempt so you on't confuse others. You don't know the difference...or pretend not to know the difference between 'unsafe' and 'at risk'. I do.
The cord as it stands, unterminated at the loose wire end is unsafe as an object. A person can be injured, or injure another through the medium
voltage applied if ...as it is..it is plugged into the mains. Certainly it would be more unsafe were the wires more greatly exposed .
As it lies the cord has the potential to cause harm. In a human environment such as say a construction site in an OHS-intelligent place
you would have your backside booted...as one may say...for leaving it accessible as opposed or example as it being locked in a store.
There it is still 'unsafe' but isolated from use.If however a person leaves it lying about or plugs it in without Standards-level termination
or even C.O.P. 'risk' has been introduced....moving from a minor potential to a greater unsafety viewed as 'risk'.
Risk is commonly viewed as an uncertainty of outcome and yes it is applied 'in advance' using a set of observations and mitigation proposals..
If you, for example, were on a site and left that cord or similar others or others in that condition lying about on a construction site and were
twice warned,a civilised site with OHS-savvy (and even with Union interventions )would have you removed for increasing risk..
Building sites themselves, empty of persons are intrinsically unsafe. Inhabited they don't need a person putting at risk themselves or others or
stakeholders or propperty vulnerable to the intrinsic unsafety or creating new 'unsafeties'. .
USA was the fastest nation to take up the new OHS concepts of Lord Robens, Australia was one of the last. Whilst not properly educated in the
trickery of the UK Government in putting together the 'Robins' propositions , most today think it as a step forward. I do not. In fact it passed off
respnsibility onto workers to safeguard employers..
Robins was a creep who, post-Aberfan (1966 disaster) sold out ..for social promotion. in the way in which Britain has always excelled
...duplicityand disingenuity . Aberfan . which suffered his auhority...was long an unsafe site...you of course might call it 'safe' as people were
surviving the day.....and then it rained heavily...unsafe became 'incvreasingly at risk' then disaster......killing many.
Back at the 'cord'...were it to have a suitable socket correctly polarised and fitted...or a secure junction box with secure, correctly rated and fitted
connectors on the exposed leads then it would be safe..as it stands/lies. Without delving much further...and I hope this 'car' example reduces the risk
that anyone agrees with you or thinks yours a clever answer. I have a personal as well as professional obligation to put a clear case against your
reasoning.
There's something of a macho cutlure in USA. I see over the course of numerous utube videos, for example, scorning chain brakes.is macho for
some and they broadcast it to 'learnersa' and 'admirers' through bad example ...... That does not help people to get a grip on OHS.
in closing, as promised...a car with no brakes is unsafe butproperly tagged puts no one who can read and extend the warning into mindset, at risk. .
You don't have to start it up to know that.. Locked in a compound or barn or garage the car is still not safe..its isolation does not make it 'safe'...
it is still 'unsafe'. It is not until a person starts it or attempts to drive it that the 'unsafe' graduates to 'putting self and other persons at risk'.
That's it...
Hermio
Addicted to ArboristSite
That is what Ohio does. They carve out an exception for "bundles" as sold at convenience stores, etc.
I hadn't heard about that exception but never really looked that hard. As has been pointed out in this thread, no one actually enforces these laws. I just figured the bundle thing was another example of that lack of enforcement. I did tree work and sold firewood in Ohio for 20 years, including a little bit in bundles. I'm curious now. Got a link to that exception in the ORC?
Edit: Never mind, I found it.
Post #1:
"A cord of wood is 4' x 4' x 8' length. 128 cu. ft of wood and air." Pretty sure the legal definition for commerce includes the words firewood, and tightly stacked.
It is true that if you take 100" logs and stack them in a pile 8' long x 4' high you would have two cord (or is it cords?) of logs. These two cord of logs will stack out considerably less when cut into 16" rounds. The same 16" rounds grow in volume when split and stacked, but still comes up way short of two 128 cu. ft. tightly stacked cords.
Curly Cherry did a work bench example using dowels which proved inaccurate because of the difference between straight uniform dowels and logs. At least on the twenty 20 cord log loads I've gotten they don't stack on the truck as uniform as dowels. Including a good cord of junk, shorts, punky, etc. I get about 17 cord. 16 that I can sell, out of 20. The rest, the junk, is thrown in row packs and later bundled, same as the sellable stuff, and seasoned for one year for us to burn in a catalytic wood stove.
As stated by some, they believe otherwise.
If you purchase a cord of firewood you expect a full cord of seasoned wood. The reality is, if you cut/split/stack a cord of wood, a year later after seasoning the stacked piles will no longer be 4' high due to settling and seasoning. Is it still a cord of wood if it use to stack out as one, and does not when delivered?
Obviously not, in my opinion. As the purchaser, you, should get 128 cu. ft. of tightly stacked firewood.
Responding to Turnkey 4099, and not just him, as this is a common statement.
"As for a 10 cord load... you got cheated." That's not my experience.
Topped off, below.
Six racks would be two cord of rounds. This is a partial fifth rack and done.
Splitting the rounds. This is a partial fifth rack and done.
Conclusion: logs to rounds, loss due to nesting better; rounds to splits, gain back some.
Logs to splits, loss of 5' high (one complete rack plus 12") x 8' wide x 16" length in two cord.
Converting to cu. in.
92,160 (cu. in. shy of two cord)/442,368 (cu. in. in two cord) = 20.83% loss (logs to splits)
estimating logs to rounds loss.
110,592 (6' x 8'x 16" short of rounds)/442,368 = 25% loss (logs to rounds)
I would rephrase the explanation of "To be installed" to It is a "Bait and Bite Cord" If someone needs edjimacated you give them the skived end and then you get to energize it.
I think or at least thought the reverse is the case at least for they type of logs that could be run through a processor. Look at this rack and the rounds waiting to be split in the picture. There sure look like more void in the rounds. Also look at how the vertical side in the splits matches the vertical end board versus how rounds would both only touch the end at one spot and perhaps not go all the way due to fitting between the rounds below.
.
Otherwise your post I agree with.
Around here it seems the firewood guys that are worth using more than once have processors and load a dumping type truck loose. Even the ones that take checks don't give a receipt not sure if anyone asks. Another issue could be is having a swinging baffle in the bed which they say is so they can dump half of it only is fair or not. Obviously a vertical baffle will make more voids. I realize it is how it stacks, can't recall I have sold any firewood though I think I did put a craig list ad for as much as you could put in an 8 foot pickup no side boards.
Bottom line: If the guy promises 10 cord there better be close to 10 cord split and sstacked. That one can measure a log truck load and the cubes come out to 128 cu ft x number promised but it doesn't split stack to that, he can't argue that is was 10 cord on the truck by measure because that does not meed the definition of cord "TIGHTLY STACKED".
Weights and measurss, if they are doing there job, would land on him if you only got 8 cord split/stacked.
Similar threads
