I have no experience with Norway Maple, but if it's anything like Red Maple I imagine it burns quickly because it's so soft.

Thats what I'm thinking. Oaks are hardwoods but not seeing flames makes me think theres less heat in the wood stove.

Oaks, maples, and pretty much all broad-leaved trees in the N. temperate zone, are considered "hardwoods". Even something like aspen. "Softwoods" are conifers.

Obviously, within each classification, there is a wide range of actual wood hardness.

I've burned Norway maple in the past and I consider it excellent firewood. As to the oak, you're the best judge of whether it's rotten or not. Obviously, rotted wood makes for little to no combustion. Otherwise, oak is another very good firewood. Some of the best actually. And the amount of visible flame has relatively little to do with the actual number of BTUs contained therein.

FWIW, I believe oak tends to take longer to become fully dry for burning purposes. Anyone confirm or refute this notion?

+oM

wisconsitom - So you're basically saying if the wood is rotten then I won't get combustion ie: flames?

This is important to me since I'm about to get a cord+ from him soon.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Rotten wood is a good ingredient for making compost, and little else.

+oM

What probably is your problem is that the oak is wet and needs to be dried out before burning by bringing inside, stored in a shed or under cover with good air circulation. You can see the ends get cracks in them as it dries. Oak also gets a dotty ring around it that holds moisture.

Tom was correct. The amount of heat produced by burning different wood is not directly related to the amount of visible flame.

Combustion is not the same as flames. Flames frequently accompany the combustion process, but are not necessary for combustion. Embers are combusted without flame in a process called "smoldering combustion".

Differences in visible flame are due to multiple factors including the type of wood, how dry the wood is, decomposition, etc. Below is a link to a chart that illustrates differences with different types of wood.

Here is a link that might be useful: Which Wood Do I Burn?

I have been burning wood of all kinds for more years than I want to think about, both in wood stoves and open fireplaces. There are all kinds of very specific differences between woods, but most of the differences are not really very important.

But in general I can say, with Tom, that rotten wood is not good. Of course there are degrees of rot, and a little rot is not much of a problem. Second, wood should be dry. In an open fireplace green wood is a big problem, but in a hot wood stove with proper air controls, it can be burned, but an amount of heat is lost in proportion to the amount of moisture that has to be driven off.

As for woods and their value in a wood stove. I find that the best guide is the air dry weight--the heavier, the more heat value and/or greater burning time. When I am setting my stove for nightime burning--I may get up once to refill the stove--I prefer the heavier, denser woods, which on my land include beech, sugarmaple, and oak. The website linked in the previous post had a list and some brief comments, some of which are heppful, come of which are not. For example, the comment about birch does not seem that good to me. The birch I am familiar with--river birch, black birch, and yellow birch make good firewood. Maybe not as good as oak, sugar maple, or beech, but close.

Although I prefer the heavier, denser woods for overnight burning, the softer, less dense and heavy woods are just fine. Red maple and Black cherry burn very well. Perhaps cottonwood poplar is something that I would not use if other woods are available. And I don't burn pine and spruce wood, etc. because they produce more creosote, but they are fine if hardwoods are not handy.

Oh, just one more point--if the registers are set properly for slow burning in an airtight stove, there should be very little visible flame.

--Spruce

I like wood fires and have just a couple random bits to add. First, has anyone here ever burned tamarack? Even though it is a softwood, it makes a very good fire, and the aroma produced by burning this species is just great. Second, I remember once reading an account of the early fur-trading outposts up here in the Great Lakes region. This would have been perhaps the Hudson Bay Co. circa 17th century.....I think. At any rate, in the account, it was mentioned that these outposts burned green, freshly cut aspen all winter long. Kind of puts things in perspective. Where the need exists, a great many species can be burned, and at a wide range of dryness. Contrast this with a guy I know, who will burn nothing but dry hickory in his stove! Gives you the full range, I think.

+oM

Excellent posts guys. Thanks.

To check if wood is too rotten to burn bang two pieces together. You should get a firm clank sound somewhat like knocking two baseball bats together if the wood is good.
I typically blend different woods together to get an even burn in my stove. Sounds like your oak and maple would burn good together, with the maple keeping combustion going at a satisfactory rate.

No clank. But good point on burning both types in thye stove. I like that thought process.

I got black cherry wood I'm burning. I love the smell. :)

When Clanking wood, make sure the contact surfaces are not covered with bark, it will dull the sound, So even with no rot, it may not sound like hitting to bat together.