Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Davy Crockett" data-source="post: 462793" data-attributes="member: 367">AI Isn't sure either. There seems to be some debate and confusion about whether a cord of unsplit wood (rounds) or a cord of split wood yields more actual wood volume. Here's a summary of the arguments:Less air space: Unsplit rounds, when stacked, naturally minimize the air gaps between them because of their round shape, according to one source.Splitting introduces voids: When rounds are split, it introduces more air space when the pieces are stacked, potentially leading to a larger overall volume for the same amount of actual wood, says one contributor.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tighter stacking: Some argue that split wood, particularly when stacked carefully, can be packed more tightly than rounds, reducing the air spaces and potentially resulting in more actual wood per cord.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Less bark: Splitting exposes more wood and reduces the amount of bark, which has a lower density than the inner wood, potentially contributing to a denser and more fuel-efficient stack</li> </ul>Practical experience: Some users note that when they split a stack of rounds, the resulting volume of split wood ends up being smaller than the original stack. ConclusionThe debate highlights the difficulty in precisely measuring the actual wood content in a cord, especially with varying shapes and stacking techniques. While a cord is a standard volume measurement, the amount of solid wood within that volume can vary depending on whether it's split or unsplit and how tightly it's stacked.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA