Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 14:51:16 -0700
Reply-To: miguel pacheco <mundopacheco@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: miguel pacheco <mundopacheco@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Vanagon Winter Survival Kit Question
In-Reply-To: <662F31CED6F843119FCE8BD9B94F0F4A@MAINCOMPUTER>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
At the risk of Bob opening up a can of whup arse on me, the correct
dimension of a cord of wood is 8'(not 16')x4'x4'. Sorry, I just
couldn't stand it, being the mountain man that I am......do I win?
Miguel
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Courtney Hook <courtneyhook@shaw.ca> wrote:
> My woodstove came with a list of the various hardwoods and softwoods and
> their BTU's. It showed a good difference between the oaks (highest BTU's)
> and the softwoods. Just a fact I thought I'd state from the Osburn woodstove
> site.
> Courtney
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Always be yourself, because the people that matter don't mind,
> and the ones who mind, don't matter.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob" <becida@COMCAST.NET>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 9:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Vanagon Winter Survival Kit Question
>
>
>> At 11/1/2009 03:23 AM,Mike S wrote:
>>>
>>> At 01:01 AM 11/1/2009, Rob wrote...
>>>>
>>>> Extra heat? That is the wood burning in addition to the wax.
>>>
>>> Hey, just like an artificial log! But, wax holds much more heat
>>> energy than wood, so your claim doesn't make sense, since the one
>>> could just use more wax in place of the wood. (paraffin ~= 20,000
>>> BTU/lb, wood ~= 6,000)
>>
>> Try it and see or just bad mouth it?
>>
>>
>>
>>> I know what you mean. If you don't study or research things, and
>>> just believe "old wive's tales," then you don't always make good
>>> choices. Don't you wish you had found out sooner that aspen holds
>>> 14.7M BTU/cord, weighs 2290 lbs/cord, and produces 6419 BTU/lb,
>>> while white oak holds 25.7M BTU/cord, and weighs 4012 lbs/cord,
>>> which is 6405 BTU/lb? So, the difference is a full 0.2% in energy
>>> per pound. The US Forest Service ranks pine at the top.
>>
>>
>> The problem here is you are mixing volumes (a cord) with weight.
>> A cord of hardwood has more energy in it than a cord of softwood, a
>> lot more (this is a volume measurement), and it weighs more. You put
>> the same measure (volume) of sawdust in a can and there is more heat
>> in the hardwood saw dust. Putting saw dust in a coffee can is a volume
>> thing.
>>
>> I don't know anything about presto-logs but I have talked to one
>> person who used one of these survival candles.
>>
>> My "claim" is that I talked to someone who used one, it is easy to
>> make and would store well in the back of a Vanagon and if you ever
>> really needed it it might help. What are you claiming on all this? Do
>> you have a point to this? Why are we wasting bandwidth on this? What
>> is your point?
>>
>> Add something useful or stir the pot, <shrug>. I'm tired of dealing
>> with your stirring but will jump back in if you add something useful to
>> this.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rob
>> becida@comcast.net
>
| 
