When you say, "ranks pine at the top," that ignores that there are
multiple species of pine listed, and that the "top" ranking that you
mention is for pitch pine by weight, not by volume.  Pitch pine is a
very poor wood for home heating, as it produces a lot of creosote (or
pitch), and is thus dangerous.  Pitch pine was one of the most abundant
trees in the area where I lived in eastern Kentucky, but no one burned
it for home heating.  David

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:23 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)
>
>> All wood has the same energy?
>
> Pretty close, by weight.
>
>> Oh wow, think of all the time I spent messing with the oak rather
>> than
>> the aspen... See that was my problem, I thought I was getting more
>> heat from the oak than I did from the softwoods all those years.
>
> 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.
>
> Sources:
>
> http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/W/AE_wood_heat_value_BTU.html
>
> http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr29.pdf