Log drying test

[Justme]

Justify your comment please.

 

Thats easy, you cant compare apple & oranges.

 

Rounds have a different surface area to squares for the same weight / volume.

 

Different species dry at different rates & start at different moisture levels so using two species in one test has already messed with the results.

 

Just spotted someone say its two tests so in that case each one is valid in its own right but you still cant compare one group with the other.

[Woodworks]

"you still cant compare one group with the other."

 

Your not supposed to.

Test 1 shows that bark is a major inhibitor to moisture lose and test 2 shows moisture is lost fastest through the end grain. Presuming that other species behave in a similar way I think it safe to assume from the two tests that to dry logs quickly you want to cut them short and split them. No real surprise but I wanted evidence just in case convention wisdom was wrong.

 

In hindsight it would have helped to have 2 separate graphs to avoid confusion.

[woodyguy]

Woodworks, as a scientist myself I would agree with your wife, let it run.

There is no fault with the design which is perfect. The only way to improve it would have been to do several editions of each number ie 5 logs at number 1,2 and 3 etc. This would have made it more accurate but wasn't necessary.

 

If you really want to put the cat amongst the pigeons, look at how accurate your moisture meter is. You have correctly used weight for this series of experiments. I tried similar with weight vs moisture meter readings and found it was pretty much a joke with readings bearing little relation to actual moisture (even if freshly split). They did go in the right direction, ie drier wood by weight read less on the meter, but when my meter said 20% it was actually 34%.

[Woodworks]

That's interesting what you say about moisture meters. I was wondering about the accuracy of my old Protimeter (a quality meter in it's day) that has just died. Do you have any advice on a good reliable replacement? The Protimeter came with a correction table as different timbers have a different resistance at the same moisture content.

 

Edit

Just seen your post in the other thread

Edited February 5, 2013 by Woodworks

[woodyguy]

I tested mine by cutting down a rowan tree which I have to assume had constant moisture throughout the small length of trunk used for the tests. I then measured the moisture with a moisture meter. I cut a log and split it into four. From this log I cut a small kindling size piece, weighed it accurately and then dried it on the stove top at 100c for a couple of days until it got no lighter. This gave me an accurate reading for the wood's moisture when cut which was 51%.

The meter was reading 37% at this time for the same wood. I then weighed the three logs and calculated the dry weight from the 51% reading. I dried these for several weeks and then split them to test with the meter. I seem to remember (no figures to hand) that when the meter was saying 20% internal fresh split surface, the actual weight showed a moisture of 36%. I was shocked as I expected it to be a small difference say 2-3% but this meant that I could be selling logs with 36% moisture as fully seasoned.

 

I now when I split logs mark the Target weight on a couple of them and put a big cross on the end. I stack them with the others and after a few months, weigh these and when they achieve target weight then I know they are seasoned to 20%. There is a massive difference in the stove between a true 20% log and one that the moisture meter says is 20% but is actually 36%.

I'd be fascinated for you to repeat the test as your meter and method might be slightly different.

[borderfirewood]

what this experiment says to me is.............furniture out logs in:thumbup: