Where to buy good charcoal

[dagabu]

In general, you get more charcoal per weight of wood from retort, but it takes longer and building something as opposed to using an open bon fire is more complicated than building a TLUD device. I have 3 1gal TLUD cans so can do 3 gallons per sitting as I do not need a whole lot of charcoal and I do not have a supply of 5gallon cans.

 

One word of note, avoid the aluminum(cheaper) pipes for the stack, they WILL weaken and melt with the heat of these TLUDs.

 

While is is true that you will get more yield of finished charcoal inside the container, that is very deceiving on its face since the amount of energy in the form of wood consumed to use a retort is hundreds of times greater than the amount of charcoal lost internally to ash in a TLUD.

 

The average time to build in less than an hour, a step drill, tin snips and good gloves are all you need to convert a 5 gallon can and make a stack.

 

I do agree that aluminum is not acceptable for the stack, use steel. Its also cheaper.

[DavidF]

I wonder why there is a better yield from a retort. What is the extra weight? I have heard both retorters and TLUDers champion their methods as being the better way. I've not heard convincing enough evidence of anything to become a TLUDer. It sure would be nice if somebody did a side by side test of both methods with charcoal from the same batch, to see which method makes the better charcoal.

 

The 'lost' wood needed for heat to retort charcoal is no big issue, IMO. All my wood for making BP charcoal is well-trimmed, cut to length, and debarked. Wood to heat the retort is free. Commercial makers all use retorts. If I thought the TLUD would make charcoal that was better in any way, I'd try it. Anybody have numbers to look at?

[NeighborJ]

I've worked in a few coke gas generation plants, they use a tlud style cooker called a battery. They tightly control the air input to ensure no oxygen is present in the coke oven gas, their main goal is volitile gas production with as little extra energy added as possible, which I believe is the only reason they use this method. If your heat source is free then the retort is definitely the way to go.

While I'm on this topic I wonder if anyone has tried to use coal for BP? I have an exposed seam behind my house and it's tempting to at least try a load raw or in a retort.

[mikeee]

I wonder why there is a better yield from a retort. What is the extra weight? I have heard both retorters and TLUDers champion their methods as being the better way. I've not heard convincing enough evidence of anything to become a TLUDer. It sure would be nice if somebody did a side by side test of both methods with charcoal from the same batch, to see which method makes the better charcoal.

 

The 'lost' wood needed for heat to retort charcoal is no big issue, IMO. All my wood for making BP charcoal is well-trimmed, cut to length, and debarked. Wood to heat the retort is free. Commercial makers all use retorts. If I thought the TLUD would make charcoal that was better in any way, I'd try it. Anybody have numbers to look at?

David,

 

There are several commercial charcoal producers that use steel shipping containers as the cooker. They load the wood into the shipping container ignite the wood inside let it start burning good and close the steel doors and let the wood cook. They have a chimney and several air inlets that can be closed down towards the end of the cook.

Edited December 10, 2016 by mikeee

[DavidF]

Mikeee, I mis-spoke there. I meant commercial makers of charcoal for black powder use. And, I may not be totally right on that either. So I'll just say that any charcoal for making commercial black powder that I know of is made by the retort method.

[dagabu]

Mikeee, I mis-spoke there. I meant commercial makers of charcoal for black powder use. And, I may not be totally right on that either. So I'll just say that any charcoal for making commercial black powder that I know of is made by the retort method.

 

Dave, I think you and I have gone back and forth on this subject off-line and after a short search, I found information from Tim Secon, Northwest Charcoal and Chemical Company and Royal Oak about charcoal used for pyrotechnics and black powder.

 

The problem with our nomenclatures is that Kiln, Retort and Top Light Up Draft Retort-Kiln are all the same in practice. Simply put, a closed chamber or type of oven, that produces temperatures sufficient to complete some process, such as hardening, drying, or chemical changes. A retort by definition should capture the gasses, ours do not.

 

We really should be using the name Pyrolysis Chamber:

 

"Pyrolysis is a thermochemical decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen (or any halogen). It involves the simultaneous change of chemical composition and physical phase, and is irreversible. The word is coined from the Greek-derived elements pyro "fire" and lysis "separating"."

 

Royal Oak uses a pipe-screw kiln. It's all electric and only achieves a temp of 1400°F. The idea is to dry it and drive off all the unnecessary water while retaining 20-30%m of volatiles.

 

M Violette and M Gossart both write of processes used to make the most potent charcoal for the manufacturing of black powder and both explain the need to not fully drive off the volatiles or fully carbonize the wood.

 

Or as Ulrich Bretscher explaines, "Charcoal does not consist of pure carbon © as most authors purport. Such a pure charcoal would require a charring temperature of at least 2700°F! And a black powder mixed with it would probably burn like the head of a matchstick, at best."

 

Food for thought...

[dagabu]

I wonder why there is a better yield from a retort. What is the extra weight? I have heard both retorters and TLUDers champion their methods as being the better way. I've not heard convincing enough evidence of anything to become a TLUDer. It sure would be nice if somebody did a side by side test of both methods with charcoal from the same batch, to see which method makes the better charcoal.

 

The 'lost' wood needed for heat to retort charcoal is no big issue, IMO. All my wood for making BP charcoal is well-trimmed, cut to length, and debarked. Wood to heat the retort is free. Commercial makers all use retorts. If I thought the TLUD would make charcoal that was better in any way, I'd try it. Anybody have numbers to look at?

 

For me, this is the deal breaker when making charcoal. It's not the cost of the wood in bitcoin, loonies or dollars, it's the work to cut it down, cut to length, split and dry it. The "retort" method also adds a lot of pollution to the air that simply does not have to be released using the "TLUD" method.

[DavidF]

Dagabu, please allow me to retort! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retort

 

I think the term 'retort' is sufficiently accurate for our purposes. My retort is used for the distillation of wood. Whether or not the distillate is captured is a different story. You say that the retort method adds a lot of pollution to the air. That may be so if it is not done right. The escaping gases can be burned so that the retorting produces no visible smoke, just as with a TLUD. If the opening of the retort is on the bottom, the heat generated can be used in the carbonization process.

 

I would never say that cooking charcoal in a retort and in a TLUD are the same thing. One process involves oxygen and burning, and one does not. I would describe retorting as destructive distillation, and TLUDing as incomplete combustion, but I'm no scientist.

 

If Royal Oak is using electric heat, it's not for making the Royal Oak barbecue charcoal in my bag- or they wouldn't be in business. Besides, the volatiles certainly are driven off in the Royal Oak barbecue charcoal.

 

I agree that the volatiles must be retained for good black powder charcoal. I don't see anywhere that you said any commercial charcoal for black powder is made with a TLUD. I'm almost willing to stick my neck out and say that the commercial charcoal that is good for barbecue and useless for black powder is made by a method more resembling the TLUD method than the retort method- almost.

 

Please don't beat me with a TLUD stack, guys! Just show me some real comparisons that demonstrate the superior value of the TLUDed product- if there are any

[NeighborJ]

I have seen an episode of dirty jobs with Mike Rowe in which he visited a small mom and pop charcoal mill. They used a sea can loaded with a skid loader as a retort. I can also remember going on a field trip as a kid to some historical site, they said the blacksmiths used a large bonfire in a pit then buried the smoldering fire to acquire their charcoal I would think this method would most resemble the tlud method. Edited December 10, 2016 by NeighborJ

[dagabu]

Dagabu, please allow me to retort! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retort

 

I think the term 'retort' is sufficiently accurate for our purposes. My retort is used for the distillation of wood. Whether or not the distillate is captured is a different story. You say that the retort method adds a lot of pollution to the air. That may be so if it is not done right. The escaping gases can be burned so that the retorting produces no visible smoke, just as with a TLUD. If the opening of the retort is on the bottom, the heat generated can be used in the carbonization process.

 

I would never say that cooking charcoal in a retort and in a TLUD are the same thing. One process involves oxygen and burning, and one does not. I would describe retorting as destructive distillation, and TLUDing as incomplete combustion, but I'm no scientist.

 

If Royal Oak is using electric heat, it's not for making the Royal Oak barbecue charcoal in my bag- or they wouldn't be in business. Besides, the volatiles certainly are driven off in the Royal Oak barbecue charcoal.

 

I agree that the volatiles must be retained for good black powder charcoal. I don't see anywhere that you said any commercial charcoal for black powder is made with a TLUD. I'm almost willing to stick my neck out and say that the commercial charcoal that is good for barbecue and useless for black powder is made by a method more resembling the TLUD method than the retort method- almost.

 

Please don't beat me with a TLUD stack, guys! Just show me some real comparisons that demonstrate the superior value of the TLUDed product- if there are any

 

Maybe not Royal Oak and but Kingsford sure looks like it does!

 

https://youtu.be/RjFNAKugkv0?t=91

Edited December 10, 2016 by dagabu

[DavidF]

Dagabu I understand your point but it still feels like apples and oranges to me. Now I know how briquettes are made, but how is charcoal made, the same way? You are obviously a TLUDer and will never see the merits of the retorter position. For those just tuning in, I jest. This is great stuff to discuss! My experience is with retorting and I advocate that method without having TLUDed.

 

I have a nicely cured batch of staghorn sumac that may need to be cooked two ways

[Nessalco]

I've used both. TLUDs are OK if you have very dry, uniform feedstock (like animal bedding or pellets). I work with feedstock from a variety of sources and in a variety of sizes, and vastly prefer using a retort. I've also mentioned the issue with fumes and sumac.

 

There are biochar retorts that require an external fire to get them going, then are self-sustaining and self-extinguishing.

 

http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/backyard_biochar_kiln_instructions.pdf

 

Kevin

[Nessalco]

Also, if you haven't done so check through the threads oldguy did a few years back. He did extensive work to maximize efficiency of a retort system.

 

http://www.amateurpyro.com/forums/topic/6890-oldguys-triple-barrel-charcoal-retort-design

 

Kevin

[dagabu]

Dagabu I understand your point but it still feels like apples and oranges to me. Now I know how briquettes are made, but how is charcoal made, the same way? You are obviously a TLUDer and will never see the merits of the retorter position. For those just tuning in, I jest. This is great stuff to discuss! My experience is with retorting and I advocate that method without having TLUDed.

 

I have a nicely cured batch of staghorn sumac that may need to be cooked two ways

 

Au dou contraire, mon frere!

 

I do have a retort, I made it some 20 years ago and have made hundreds of batches of charcoal with it. The thing has made its way into almost every bonfire I have been to in the past 2 decades and still does. I do however, advocate TLUD simple for the fact that it makes nearly identical charcoal with a fraction of the fuel. It's also cleaner and faster, especially in larger containers.

 

I use the retort for specific woods/fibers I want to test and no, I don't share those results since the materials are not available in bulk quantities like Willow or Pine. For example: Grape vine charcoal. In basic baseball tests, the charcoal varies so wildly that the data is useless. We have TONS of wild grape vines that we are free to harvest as we wish. Fantastic! Pull down a cordon, run the whole vine through a chipper shredder, dry it and cook it. 5.85 seconds using a bulk mixed KNO3 and Sulfur comp from a 35 gallon can.

 

I used that same KNO3/S mix with another vine, 8 seconds, the green cuttings alone, 7.2 seconds. All brown wood from the cordon alone, 5.5 seconds, green cuttings from my cultivated vine at home, 4.66 seconds.

 

For me, the charcoal thing is the most frustrating part of pyro. My build buddy took an entire weeping willow and split it, TLUD cooked it and milled it down to airfloat to 20 mesh and mixed it all together to get consistent burn times. He made a batch that milled overnight, water/dex bound pulverone, it got 10 plus seconds!

 

I am as lost as I was 2 decades ago where it comes to charcoal and all I can say for sure is that TLUD turns trees into charcoal with ease and all the woods becomes usable charcoal.

 

To each his/her own!

[OldMarine]

I have a 20 gallon water heater I turned into a retort and use it at the end of the heating season to cook charcoal and use leftover/degraded firewood as fuel. I like the TLUD for the rest of the year because I heat with wood and can't be wasting time and energy searching for fuel to heat the retort. I do occasionally cook up a batch of Oak in the retort for cooking purposes!

[NeighborJ]

I'm curious about grapevine. I've got loads of wild grapevine hanging from the trees in my back yard. Is this the same stuff used for charcoal? And is it a coal for speed or effects? This could be a good excuse to declare war on the viney pests which are killing my maples and cherry trees.

[dagabu]

Yes, I do believe it is the same vine. The Maltese use vine exclusively (last time I read anything about them) for their BP but as with any wood, the species will drastically change performance of the BP. The wild vines (Vitis riparia, or the Riverbank Grape) that lives in harsh conditions across the US seem to make poor BP but I would try it, you may have different soil etc.

 

I am not aware of anybody making any commercial charcoal from this vine.

[NeighborJ]

I just made ten gallons of milled charcoal but I'll mabe need some in the spring so I'll try it then. It sounds like it may be a substitute for commercial airfloat if it's slow. I've tried making a mixed hardwood batch(oak,maple,cherry,misc) in the retort but it ended up being a lot faster than the stuff offered elsewhere so I've been using it up on mcrh and KP burst.

[MrB]

The "retort" method also adds a lot of pollution to the air that simply does not have to be released using the "TLUD" method.

 

What pollution is that? The burning wood/charcoal used for the heat? The stuff from the retort it self should easily be burned of, an equal to the TLUD process.

Since the heat comes from a renewable source, it's supposed to be environmentally friendly. (As in, it might stink and smell, but it wont add to the CO2 production and such, and will let one stay green... Even when one looks like a chimney troll, all black and crazy.)

B!

[NeighborJ]

Awww, don't worry about it B, according to our president elect the whole thing with global warming is made up so it's a mute point. Apparently for some reason people seem to think pollution equates to less fuel consumption but no it refers to harmful contaminants being released into the environment. You can have a very fuel efficient vehicle but it polutes and you can have a gas hogg make less harmful emitions.

I agree that the retort used in the correct manor releases less contaminants then the TLUD, I also agree that the fire under it will meet or exceed the polution from the TLUD and use up more fuel. So if you look at the yield per contaminants ratio is think the TLUD is more efficient.

environmental polution is an acceptable trade-off as a pyro as long as we get the effect color or Sparks we want. There is nothing environmentaly friendly about burning hazardous chemicals. And I think it is an issue we ALL ignore or never really want to ask ourselves which could be considered arrogance.

[DavidF]

Simply stating things as they are is not very helpful to positions at either end of the scale, just like in court. "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..." is one thing that both sides can agree should NOT be heard. It's not much different out here in reality.

 

It is true that trees build their cellulose through photosynthesis, which consumes CO2. When the wood is burned the same CO2 is given back. There are plenty of other substances going into the air too. In some rural areas, our towns have had to enact bylaws to ban outdoor wood-burning heating systems for homes within town limits. Sometimes they smoke the neighbors right out!

 

There is no real money to be made by having a reasonable approach on the big issues. The global warming 'fight' has folks extracting their livings on the far ends of the scale. The reasonable people in the middle area pay for all of it

 

When I first got into pyro, I did wonder about all the chemicals I was releasing into the environment. But then I got a little better, and my barium stars didn't fall unlit When pyro functions as it should, the most noxious substances are converted back to fairly inert forms, just as they were for millions of years (if you believe in science) before man made pyro chemicals. For example, flash powder; the perchlorate is no longer perchlorate after the boom. The aluminum is turned back into aluminum oxide, which it likely originated as! I guess the biggest source of pollution from pyro is the residue from the burning of our most used pyro product, black powder. Of course, the sulfur emissions pale in comparison to the emissions from volcanos, industry, and human farts.

 

Again, a reasonable position is unpopular because our world now runs on disagreement. It's hard to avoid letting sources of disagreement dominate discussions, because we are increasingly encouraged to disagree. This is how the forces we trust to guide us extract value from the worker bees. Sorry for the rant, but there's an old saying: every story has 3 sides- your side, my side, and the truth.

[NeighborJ]

Hey I'm not disagreeing with anyone. I use retorts because I have brush piles I burn anyway, I just throw in all four 7 gallon retort cans and pull them out as the flair slows down. I guess in that respect it's as efficient as its gonna get. I do wonder about some of the other chems we use in pyro. Bismuth, lead, mercury, antimony, resin the list goes on, what's all that stuff turn into and where does that end up going? Most of my work is in the gas and oil industry and believe me when I say that I've witnessed some environmental atrocitys both deliberately and accidental. I cringe when I think of them, the running joke is "it came out of the ground, it can go back to the ground."

[OldMarine]

My BP screw-ups made for some great tomato plants and I regularly consume bismuth after my five alarm chili. Other chems I use are in ecologically insignificant quantities and I'm not going to sweat it. The fires in East TN put out more carbon and who knows what else than any 10 of us could in a lifetime and one good volcanic eruption dwarfs the emissions of mankind since prehistory.

[Tim1877]

Wow the amount of knowledge you can gain by asking a simple question in this forum is truly amazing. You guys have an amazing amount of knowledge and show true passion for this hobby, I'm new and trying to soak it all in I like to do as much reading as I can before I dive into something new,and this is a great place to do that.

[DavidF]

Yeah, even when we bicker about details, we all walk away a bit wiser in the end. No matter how it goes, I think being part of a discussion is better than just reading stuff on the net. I think APC is a very good resource, and I especially like the fact that newbies can be pointed in the right direction without first paying a cover charge.