Small logs for small wood burners.

[Will Heal]

I don't sell logs but used to cut logs for my my grandad and my dads rayburns, used to have to cut them at less than 8 inches so they would fit in sideways. Now I have my own fire and it burns better with smaller logs. Plus shorter rings split easier!

[biggarlogs]

I allways heap the loads of long log customers to make up for time saving for prosessing , the short log chaps barely get a level load as a penalty

[Jim B]

Now you have thrown a spanner into the conversation! I often wonder if the 18" log customers are getting more than the smaller logs, but they do take less time to cut. Never weighed the loads we deliver.

 

Far more logs, the Land Rover really notices 4 m3 of oak so in my opinion and having weighed the loads you get more wood buying bigger logs, it works out about half a loose cube on 4 m3 of 18" but is half the time to prepare and deliver.

[openspaceman]

How did you calculate?:

 

"they'll be getting less solid volume for the same bulk volume"

 

Comparing say 8" with 10".

 

Thanks

 

It needs a bit of empirical evidence but:

 

assuming all the logs are cut to about the same size and there are few smaller logs which will fit in the gaps between the larger logs ( look at aggregate theory especially in things like the size distribution of sand in lime mortar)

 

Start with 2 logs 80" long now, ignoring kerf, cut it in half is there any way you can stack it so that it occupies less space than the original log. Do this for one log in 10 bits and the other in 8. Even if you try and reassemble the log the cut suraces will always mean you take more space.

 

The ultimate test is to chip a solid log, the chips occupy about 2.8 times the solid log, normal cut and split logs occupy about twice the solid volume.

[openspaceman]

Far more logs, the Land Rover really notices 4 m3 of oak so in my opinion and having weighed the loads you get more wood buying bigger logs, it works out about half a loose cube on 4 m3 of 18" but is half the time to prepare and deliver.

 

That's my view too.

 

With split logs it's easier to demonstrate, stare with a ring, split it once and try and put it back together, split it into 4 and try and put it together, each time you split it each new surface has irregularities which increase the gaps between logs.

[skyhuck]

Same.

Big logs = big air gaps = less timber

If your logs were sawdust size there would be no air gaps.

 

A pile of sawdust is full of air, thats why its soft, rather than hard like a block of solid wood.

[Mark Bolam]

Try breathing it then.

[skyhuck]

Try breathing it then.

 

OK, fill a shoe box with sawdust and then get a log of the same size, I guarantee the log will be heaver, so must contain more wood.

 

Cutting up solids increases volume.

 

Because we use chippers to reduce the volume of brash (which cannot be stacked without HUGE air gaps) we imagine that cutting reduces, but thats wrong.

[geoff]

OK, fill a shoe box with sawdust and then get a log of the same size, I guarantee the log will be heaver, so must contain more wood.

 

Cutting up solids increases volume.

 

Because we use chippers to reduce the volume of brash (which cannot be stacked without HUGE air gaps) we imagine that cutting reduces, but thats wrong.

 

Inclined to agree

[Mark Bolam]

Aye I think you're right Huck, but whatever the timber volume titchy logs are a ball-ache.

People would probably still want to know 'Is it a ton?'.