# Milling Dead Wood



## HomeBody (Apr 5, 2012)

When you mill a dead tree, say a standing dead elm that's lost all it's bark, do you still have to stack and sticker it? 

If so, does it dry quicker since it's already been dead and standing? Is it less likely to warp than green wood? 

Would that dead elm log be harder on your saw blade than the same tree that was alive and well? Gary

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## CodyS (Apr 5, 2012)

The timber in a tree like that would still be very green, imagine drying a board that thick, it takes (as a rule of thumb- not to follow religiously) 1 year per inch of timber... that's a long time for a whole log.

I'm sure someone with more experience will come in and make sense haha


----------



## Mike1950 (Apr 5, 2012)

How long was it dead? if it died slowly the moisture would come out of tree in a different way then cut while green. If nothing else gravity would come somewhat into play. I have cut down trees that had a dead side that was dry but the green side was alive and well. I do not think we have enough info for answer.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 5, 2012)

The only thing that determines whether or not it's dry . . . . is the moisture content. 

Seriously standing dead trees can be as wet inside as they day they first got sick. Many factors going on. And no offense Cody but the 1" per year thing is not even good as a rough guide it's just an internet myth that will never die. 

You need a meter or you need to be able to tell if it's wet from just handling it coming off the mill - which is pretty easy. Once it gets below 20ish% it will stop moving, but it still needs to be stickered so all the surfaces can get proper airflow. Once it's dry you can dead stack it. 

BTW what's the species?

.


----------



## Mike1950 (Apr 5, 2012)

Drying also depends on climate- here we are hot and 30%+- humidity woods drys quite different here than in 80-90% humidity. Kevin is right though only true test is meter but when you saw it with experience you have a good Idea of dry or wet.


----------



## CodyS (Apr 6, 2012)

I'm going to go back to my hole...


----------



## Kevin (Apr 6, 2012)

cody.sheridan-2008 said:


> I'm going to go back to my hole...



Don't feel bad, I repeated the myth myself for the first 2 or 3 years I was online. One day I decided I did not want to repeat something I had not checked out and based even on my own experience I began to see the error in the "fact" that "... on average lumber takes one year per inch to dry...". That is simply not even close to accurate. 

Now I am trying to do my part to dispell the disinformation to the extent I helped promote it at one time. It's never too late to correct ones mistakes and that's all I'm doing Cody, I sure did not mean to belittle you if you took it that way. Like I said, I myself helped to promote the myth at one time also.


----------



## EricJS (Apr 6, 2012)

Kevin said:


> cody.sheridan-2008 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to go back to my hole...
> ...



Yeah, I think this has been used as the"standard." I've been guilty of telling people the same thing, but the truth is I've never really trusted it because there are way too many variables.

We could always create a new standard to be more accurate; "5 years per inch of thickness....or less."


----------



## CodyS (Apr 6, 2012)

Kevin said:


> cody.sheridan-2008 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to go back to my hole...
> ...



Don't worry Kevin, I like being corrected, it means I learn which in the end is a large part of me being here!

I was simply taking it with a bit of humour. My post wasn't aimed to make you feel guilty but in fact that opposite.


----------



## Jim_Rogers (Apr 7, 2012)

Kevin said:


> The only thing that determines whether or not it's dry . . . . is the moisture content.
> 
> Seriously standing dead trees can be as wet inside as they day they first got sick. Many factors going on. And no offense Cody but the 1" per year thing is not even good as a rough guide it's just an internet myth that will never die.
> 
> ...



It's easy to say it's an internet myth, but you need to tell or show how it's a myth.
Where can one research this myth and prove it is one?
Where did you get your answers so we can all learn from this statement?

Jim Rogers


----------



## Kevin (Apr 7, 2012)

Jim_Rogers said:


> It's easy to say it's an internet myth, but you need to tell or show how it's a myth.
> Where can one research this myth and prove it is one?
> Where did you get your answers so we can all learn from this statement?
> 
> Jim Rogers





Kevin said:


> ... and based even on my own experience I began to see the error ...




It's easy to say anything. You've made a lot of statements over the years that anyone could say "You need to prove your statement Jim." What you're asking is for me is to prove a negative. I think the logical order of things would be for you to prove the statement is true.

Where did this statement come from? Where is the body of research that supports this statement? Who conducted this research? What were the species used? What were the conditions? Was the research actually responsible for the researchers to coin this phrase to summarize their research? 

I assert no such research exists and this phrase was coined by someone shooting from the hip, and it sounds good and is easy to remember, but based on my own experience this "one inch per year" is so inaccurate that it shouldn't be repeated as science nor even as "a rule of thumb". 

Prove me wrong. 



.


----------



## Mike1950 (Apr 7, 2012)

Kevin, I agree- my logic is that a 1" board in Seattle, Las Vegas, and florida cannot dry the same. In the plaster biz- the question was which would dry faster-finish at 90 degrees and 95% humidity and 60 degrees and 35% humidity. The answer was very easy to prove. But to some not very obvious. Then we throw in the difference of hard maple and red cedar(western) in the summer -red cedar almost drys while you watch it. There is no way that any set rule can apply.


----------



## Daren (Apr 7, 2012)

Jim_Rogers said:


> Where can one research this myth and prove it is one?



http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr121.pdf

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr117.pdf

A couple screen shots from those long boring links packed with data that show just how many variables there are (location, time of year, species). So many variables the ''one year per inch'' simply can't apply.
That is ''research'', anecdotal I know from personal experience if I mill a walnut log 4/4 today...By August 1st it will be sitting at 12% MC. Which is EMC (equilibrium moisture content) here. If I mill that same log on Dec. 1st chances are the lumber is going to be frozen (thus not losing much moisture) for the same amount of time. So basically doubling my drying time just by milling when weather conditions are not favorable for wood drying.


----------



## Jim_Rogers (Apr 7, 2012)

Daren thanks for the links and pictures.
I'll have to study up on that for sure.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 7, 2012)

Jim_Rogers said:


> Daren thanks for the links and pictures.
> I'll have to study up on that for sure.



I think you should have studied up on it before you made such a sloppy challenge to begin with. I have to admit I was fairly surprised to see someone who claims to have your level of experience make such a post. Common sense dictates that the one inch per year rule is indefensible. I'm glad you appreciated Daren's post, but you ignoring my honest reply leaves me wondering about you even more. 

Why didn't you address my reply as honestly as I did yours in return, Jim?


----------



## Jim_Rogers (Apr 8, 2012)

Kevin:
If I have offended you in any way, I'm sorry.

I have too said that hardwood dries at an inch per year and was surprised to hear otherwise. I have read the kiln dryers handbook put out many years ago, and I read it many years ago, as well. And I thought that it said there that this was the standard. But in order for me to be sure and factual I'd have to find that book and re-read it to be sure. And I haven't had the time to find the book and read the chapter on air drying, again.

Daren post showed me the facts and I appreciated the links to where these facts are so that I can learn from it.

Many times, I have said something, that was challenged by others so now I try to show the reasons why I say what I do and where these facts come from, so that others can learn from my statements.

My challenge to you was not meant to be sloppy or to degrade you in any way. Just to help you to understand that when you say something that goes contrary to what is considered "common knowledge" to show why it is not correct and that it is a true "internet legend". Daren's post did that, so I thanked him for it.

I would have replied to your post with some proof if I had taken the time to find my book and re-read the chapter on air drying. Even if it was written a long time ago. This is what I have heard and believed to be true. If I have found your statement to be true I would have agreed with you and learned something new. Times change and the knowledge about wood is and has been updated since the handbook I'm talking about was written. And it is possible it is out dated by now.

And when you check some of the days of some of the woods listed in Daren's screen shots you'll see some of them are up to hundreds of days, that is probably why it was generalized to say it take a year per inch. But I don't know that for sure.

Again, I'm sorry for anything I said to offend you. I'm sorry that I didn't reply to your post before I replied to Daren's. 

I try to keep an open mind that I may learn something new everyday. And I do know, that I don't know it all. I'm the first to admit that. I do try and learn more all the time. I read everyday and try not to offend anyone.

Jim Rogers


----------



## Kevin (Apr 8, 2012)

Thank you Jim. I feel I owe you an apology for replying so harshly. I appreciate the rational reply here and I understand where you were coming from better now. Thanks for explaining that to me in such detail - I should have given you the benefit of the doubt and will make sure I do so in the future instead of jumping to conclusions.


----------



## Jim_Rogers (Apr 8, 2012)

Kevin:
Thanks for your comments.


----------

