Arthur Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 If you are starting out, then a standard mix using a known good charcoal is best. Be accurate in weighing as this helps get consistent results. Once you are goood at it, then you can experiment with other materials for charcoal. Unless of course there are no trees or scrap timber in your country(!) you will get the best results using a known good starting material. Cocoa powder is made with charred straw rather than charred wood. It is ridiculously sensitive and totally un-necessary for fireworks. In the UK timber pallets are made of cheap pine and con be found for free where things have been delivered - they are usually untreated so do not emit toxic smoke while cooking. Untreated building timber is usually pine of some sort but may be treated for rot resistance. A scrap of 2 x 2 from a skip is a start for pine charcoal!
50AE Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) By saying terrible, I meant friction and shock sensitive, so it shouldn't be used in pyrotechnics.So it doesn't hurt if my charcoal is a little brownish ? Edited July 10, 2009 by 50AE
Mumbles Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Your slightly brown charcoal will be fine. Cocoa powder, Arthur said is made from straw, and is intentionally undercooked, and is indeed significantly more sensitive in every way imaginable.
Bonny Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 I've often had some slightly brown charcoal when cooking and have never had problems. As long as it crushes up easily then it should be fine. I think the viewing angle and light can make the charcoal colour appear different too.
inonickname Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 I've charred some light papers and balsa in a similar fashion to this and the results were fine. However, I get the highest energy density (and speed, temperature and duration) from using jarrah- then blasting it in a furnace (not removed from oxygen) at extremely high temperatures for lengthy periods of time. It doesn't work so great trying to light the powder, or throwing it into the air and lighting it, yet when mixed with potassium nitrate and sulfur in standard BP ratios is easily my most powerful BP by a long shot- any reasons for this?
TheSidewinder Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 That's the second time I've heard someone say that Jarrah charcoal makes scary-fast BP. (Jarrah is either native to, or only grows in, Australia, if I remember right.... ?) It's anecdotal evidence, but still interesting and worth exploring further.
inonickname Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 I exclusively use a furnace to bake my charcoal now, so it will be slightly different grounds to compare on. It's very strange. It's slightly harder to ignite than oxygen starved charcoal, but the entire pile ignites in a blink(and throws the most insane sparks). It's visually and audibly much better than any other wood I've used. I'll do a short video comparing my jarrah to balsa and paper. I already have a batch of fast jarrah made up, so I'll just burn down some paper and balsa. I'm going to have to say, that not only is the burn rate often quicker but the energy density is massive in comparison to others. My jarrah coals are much heavier than balsa of the same size.. I think 1g piles are fair enough small comparisons. I'll run them in a line, each pile over a fuse to show the difference.
50AE Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 My charcoal from A4 paper is total shit ! It's not even suitable for lift powder.I have to find some use for it though, maybe spolettes, blackmatch and charcoal streamers. So far, the best charcoal I've made from paper is from tissue paper and french newspapers. The conclusion is : Trying to make good charcoal from paper is playing with your luck.
Swede Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) That sucks, 50AE. I would have guessed it'd make serviceable BP. I'll bet there are scholarly articles out there where they take a good, reactive charcoal like balsa, pine, whatever, and determine exactly what it is (chemistry-wise) that makes it superior to oak charcoal, for example. Given the mystery components (some volatile materials, I'm sure), it'd be an interesting experiment to see if those compounds can be added to slow BP and miraculously speed it up. Artificial charcoal, in other words. Edited July 13, 2009 by Swede
LGM Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 Funny you should say that, just yesterday as I was cooking up a batch of charcoal I was thinking about the possibility of adding substances to charcoal, before and/or after roasting, that might improve the qualities. The first thing that came to my mind was substances that are found in desirable woods, like either sap or turpentine from pine trees. Maybe I'll find some wood that doesn't work well otherwise and treat it with one or both of those before roasting. Another one I want to try is to make "liquid smoke" from the smoke given off by a desirable charcoal to collect some of the compounds in the wood, and treat crappy materials with that before/after cooking. Or maybe treat already good wood with it to try and make a "super-charcoal". Liquid smoke is easy to make, IIRC it's basically distilling except with smoke. A home brew method I saw for liquid smoke is to take a hot plate and put it into one of those movable clay firepits with a chimney, put a bunt cake pan on top of the chimney, put a pie pan on top of the cake pan, and a bag of ice on top of the pie pan. Put the wood of choice in a pan on the hotplate, and cook away. The smoke then collects in the cake pan. It would probably be more efficient to use a paint can and some metal tube to make a more legit still, I might try that today.
Mumbles Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 I've heard all sorts of hair brained theories. One that holds a lot of merit though is ash content. It is easily tested for. Add a small amount of your charcoal to nitric acid, and stir it for a few hours. Filter it and wash the charcoal a bit. Let the filtrate evaporate and weight that. I've found that the charcoal can is hard to be reliably dried to give good results that way. I've heard of some very good charcoals having ash content as low as 3 or 4%, where as bad stuff is up in the 10-15% category. When the cellulose rings are pyrolyzed they get torn apart. Some have postulated that these "bare ends" as it were, are correlated with burn speed. IE more reaction points. If this were the case, high temp and short cooking times would theoretically shred the molecules more.
Mario1 Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) I made a batch with pine needles. Would that produce a nice sparkle effect for fountains? edit: Will newspaper make good sparks? Edited July 20, 2009 by Mario1
TheSidewinder Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Pine needles? Good question. First time I've *personally* heard of someone using the needles. As to newspaper, that's anyone's guess, since "newspaper" can vary in its composition as has been said. I suggest you experiment with them both, and report back with results.
dagabu Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 I made a batch with pine needles. Would that produce a nice sparkle effect for fountains? edit: Will newspaper make good sparks? Take a look here for suitability charts. I have found it to be very accurate so far. http://www.pyroguide.com/index.php?title=C...itability_Table
Algenco Posted July 19, 2010 Posted July 19, 2010 I've heard all sorts of hair brained theories. One that holds a lot of merit though is ash content. It is easily tested for. Add a small amount of your charcoal to nitric acid, and stir it for a few hours. Filter it and wash the charcoal a bit. Let the filtrate evaporate and weight that. I've found that the charcoal can is hard to be reliably dried to give good results that way. I've heard of some very good charcoals having ash content as low as 3 or 4%, where as bad stuff is up in the 10-15% category. When the cellulose rings are pyrolyzed they get torn apart. Some have postulated that these "bare ends" as it were, are correlated with burn speed. IE more reaction points. If this were the case, high temp and short cooking times would theoretically shred the molecules more. That tells me that Ash should make top quality coal, it leaves the least ashes of any wood I've ever burned
Fly Posted July 19, 2010 Posted July 19, 2010 One of the post above said yellow pine????I'm not saying your wrong,but I have read more that onceto use white pine.If fact they said yellow pine gave poor results. The pine coal I made this week end was indeed white pine.I have plenty yellow pine at hand.I havenot tried it.I may be wrong but I think one of those reads was at Skylighters. I will see if I can find that. Fly
FrankRizzo Posted July 19, 2010 Posted July 19, 2010 (edited) The funny thing is that I can still see the writings on the charcoal. Paper charcoal has also the advantage to be milled faster.However, it's not as dense as the wood charcoal. 50AE, A problem that you may run into is that paper has quite a few percent clay in it to bind the fibers together nicely. You may find that the charcoal is mostly clay. Edited July 19, 2010 by FrankRizzo
frosty90 Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 As to newspaper, that's anyone's guess, since "newspaper" can vary in its composition as has been said. Newspaper seems to work quite well, it makes pretty decent bp etc. You just want regular non-shiny paper, like not the stuff magazines etc are made from, or that shiny cardboard etc. A problem that you may run into is that paper has quite a few percent clay in it to bind the fibers together nicely. You may find that the charcoal is mostly clay. Ive used quite a bit of newspaper charcoal for BP and H3 and it doesnt seem to be so. But maybe I just have good paper here. I think newspaper is the cheapest crappest form of paper around, I doubt they would go to the expense of adding much clay etc for paper that just has to last 24 hours. I'll bet there are scholarly articles out there where they take a good, reactive charcoal like balsa, pine, whatever, and determine exactly what it is (chemistry-wise) that makes it superior to oak charcoal, for example I personally suspect it has alot to do with the structure of the material, like on a micrscopic scale. I think some woods just lend themselfs well to being reduced to very small particles (consider lampblack for instance, and how reactive that is. Although it does have alot of lower boiling/vaporising components left in it than normal charcoal.) and less so the chemistry, unless you are severley undercooking your charcoal and its brown. I remeber seeing a chart somewhere, the range from about 300 to 500 degrees celcuis is apparently the best, the smoke stops at about 500 degrees.
aftertheaftershock Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) I personally suspect it has alot to do with the structure of the material, like on a micrscopic scale. I think some woods just lend themselfs well to being reduced to very small particles (consider lampblack for instance, and how reactive that is. Although it does have alot of lower boiling/vaporising components left in it than normal charcoal.) and less so the chemistry, unless you are severley undercooking your charcoal and its brown. I remeber seeing a chart somewhere, the range from about 300 to 500 degrees celcuis is apparently the best, the smoke stops at about 500 degrees. I agree in your statement about the wood mattering on a microscopic level. In the a expanded yet simplified equation of BP; 10 KNO3 + 3 S + 8 C → 2 K2CO3 + 3 K2SO4 + 6 CO2 + 5 N2 KNO3 stands for Potassium Nitrate, S stands for sulfur and C stands for carbon not charcoal as many believe, But in more expanded equations pure elemental carbon is not used and a larger molecule representing something closer to charcoal is shown. Charcoal just contains a high percentage of carbon. (Pure elemental carbon is impossible to achieve along with all other elements) But as far as woods go, whatever wood converts to the highest percentage of carbon will work most efficiently, theoretically. Alder Buckthorn (Frangula alnus) is known to be the most effective. Edited July 21, 2010 by aftertheaftershock
Peret Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 ... pure elemental carbon is not used and a larger molecule representing something closer to charcoal is shown. Charcoal just contains a high percentage of carbon. (Pure elemental carbon is impossible to achieve along with all other elements) But as far as woods go, whatever wood converts to the highest percentage of carbon will work most efficiently, theoretically. Alder Buckthorn (Frangula alnus) is known to be the most effective.Amorphous carbon (eg charcoal) is a random arrangement of hexagonal graphite platelets - carbon atoms refuse to exist singly. The old books, written when black powder was a military science, often remark that it's the trace organic residuals in charcoal that make the difference between active and less active types. This would seem to be borne out by the non-performance of activated charcoal, which has been chemically etched to increase its surface area to something like 500 square meters per gram. You would think it would make amazing BP, but people who have tried it says it sucks, which might be because the etching cleans it out and makes it too pure.
Mumbles Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Another one of the problems is to drive off all of the impurities and fully carbonize it all requires very hot temperatures. These high temperatures can result in the jagged rings refusing giving the charcoal a more graphitic structure. I believe some charcoal is approximated around C9H8O, which is 81% carbon. I really don't know if that includes ash, volatiles, etc, or just the incompletely pyrolyzed carbon. I often see values of 80-90% carbon content for charcoals. You might want to think about what "efficiency" is. Is it the most complete combustion to the formula you gave, or the fastest burn, or the most gas? There is more than just carbon content that affects burn speed. There is ash content for one. Also the microstructure. The two things that most of the "best" charcoals have in common are that they are relatively lightweight woods, and they tend to have low ash content.
aftertheaftershock Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Wow what a quick response thank you so much...so these combustable gasses that shoot out of the can will igntite if there is an open flame...would this be bad or should tha gasses stay unlit...sorry but i have never heard of TP...could you make a topic on that TP stands for toilet paper HAHA!!! And yes the gasses should stay unlit all the way through charing.
Recommended Posts