Charcal and carbon

[Verge]

Hello everyone,

I figured I should post this here because I'm a newbie and I didn't want every getting mad because I don't know this.When you make pyro grade charcoal why does it matter what kind of wood you use?I mean regardless if its hard or soft wood it all turns out to be (pure) carbon.Oh and here an interesting idea.Would it be possible to go buy a bunch of man made diamonds and use it as a source of carbon?Would graphite work too?

[Mumbles]

Diamonds and graphite will not work as well. Diamond needs liquid oxygen to burn IIRC.

 

You seem to be mistaken about charcoal. It is ideally between 70 and 80% carbon. The rest is ash, remaining oils and organic compounds, incompletely combusted charcoal, etc. When wood is pyrolyzed, it's structure remains relatively unchanged. This means that the pores, grain structure, etc all remain intact. This is correlated to some degree with quality of charcoal. While the bulk structure is broken down during ball milling, micro pores remain intact. Some others feel that the organic components play a role. Some postulate it is radical fragments on the surface of the charcoal and subsequently freshly exposed surfaces.

[TigerTail]

Diamonds and graphite will not work as well. Diamond needs liquid oxygen to burn IIRC.

 

You seem to be mistaken about charcoal. It is ideally between 70 and 80% carbon. The rest is ash, remaining oils and organic compounds, incompletely combusted charcoal, etc. When wood is pyrolyzed, it's structure remains relatively unchanged. This means that the pores, grain structure, etc all remain intact. This is correlated to some degree with quality of charcoal. While the bulk structure is broken down during ball milling, micro pores remain intact. Some others feel that the organic components play a role. Some postulate it is radical fragments on the surface of the charcoal and subsequently freshly exposed surfaces.

 

Could the microscopic pores be the major factor in determining why different kinds of woods perform differently after destructive distillation? I mean no matter how small a particle you mill it into, the microscopic pores, if more in number would expose a higher surface area compared to one with less pores. Just like activated carbon has a hell a lot of surface area.(And if what I am saying is correct, then why isn't activated carbon a good choice?)

Edited July 15, 2011 by TigerTail

[Verge]

Diamonds and graphite will not work as well. Diamond needs liquid oxygen to burn IIRC.

 

You seem to be mistaken about charcoal. It is ideally between 70 and 80% carbon. The rest is ash, remaining oils and organic compounds, incompletely combusted charcoal, etc. When wood is pyrolyzed, it's structure remains relatively unchanged. This means that the pores, grain structure, etc all remain intact. This is correlated to some degree with quality of charcoal. While the bulk structure is broken down during ball milling, micro pores remain intact. Some others feel that the organic components play a role. Some postulate it is radical fragments on the surface of the charcoal and subsequently freshly exposed surfaces.

 

Is it possible to separate charcoal from the contaminants and which woods have the most pores.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Vergeltungswaffe

[Mumbles]

Could the microscopic pores be the major factor in determining why different kinds of woods perform differently after destructive distillation? I mean no matter how small a particle you mill it into, the microscopic pores, if more in number would expose a higher surface area compared to one with less pores. Just like activated carbon has a hell a lot of surface area.(And if what I am saying is correct, then why isn't activated carbon a good choice?)

 

It might be. I have a paper where they investigated several things. One of them was pore volume and size. The better charcoals had more of them, but it was not cut and dry. One of the less than stellar charcoals had similar levels as well. Some have had excellent luck with activated charcoal, and some less than great. It probably has a lot to do with the original source (coconut, bone, etc) and how it was processed. You have to remember that while you're increasing the number of pores, you're also removing much of the organic compounds (sometimes called volatiles), probably killing off some of the more reactive sites, and making in general a more ordered, graphitic structure. I don't recall off hand if while activating charcoal one just increases the pore volume, or increases the total number of pores or both.

 

 

Is it possible to separate charcoal from the contaminants and which woods have the most pores.

 

Yes, and I have no idea. There is no definitive factor that determines if a wood will be a good choice or not. It could look like swiss cheese, and still be poor. Just stick with something tried and true like willow, maple, balsa, alder, cottonwood, etc. Most woods actually turn out pretty well. Very hard and heavy woods like some oaks, or very sappy woods like some pines are typically not as good. What isn't good for speed is often excellent for sparks though.

[Verge]

It might be. I have a paper where they investigated several things. One of them was pore volume and size. The better charcoals had more of them, but it was not cut and dry. One of the less than stellar charcoals had similar levels as well. Some have had excellent luck with activated charcoal, and some less than great. It probably has a lot to do with the original source (coconut, bone, etc) and how it was processed. You have to remember that while you're increasing the number of pores, you're also removing much of the organic compounds (sometimes called volatiles), probably killing off some of the more reactive sites, and making in general a more ordered, graphitic structure. I don't recall off hand if while activating charcoal one just increases the pore volume, or increases the total number of pores or both.

 

 

 

 

Yes, and I have no idea. There is no definitive factor that determines if a wood will be a good choice or not. It could look like swiss cheese, and still be poor. Just stick with something tried and true like willow, maple, balsa, alder, cottonwood, etc. Most woods actually turn out pretty well. Very hard and heavy woods like some oaks, or very sappy woods like some pines are typically not as good. What isn't good for speed is often excellent for sparks though.

 

OK, thanks

Edited July 15, 2011 by Vergeltungswaffe

[50AE]

I second that most woods work, like Mumbles said avoid hard and dense woods. From personal experience, a wood that was light and soft has made excellent charcoal for me.

 

I must admit I've used so much random and junk wood and I've always had good black powder with the resulting charcoal. I have used the following woods.

 

-Furniture junk pine - 30 year old broken pine doors, some rotten stuff, anything that comes free

-Random branches picked up at 1000m altitute - pine mostly

-pear

-birch

-poplar

-willow

-domestic prune

 

The last 3 woods were top performers, excellent BP. Pear and birch made a good product. Junk furniture pine makes very good BP.

 

I've never had complains when lifting a shell with the resulting BP from any of these.

 

By the way, a friend tried charcoal from apricot seeds. I took his idea as a joke, but the result was impressive, check it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usPVzZZXRLo

Edited July 15, 2011 by 50AE

[Peret]

Just like activated carbon has a hell a lot of surface area.(And if what I am saying is correct, then why isn't activated carbon a good choice?)

I wondered about that also. It appears that the high temperature treatment used to produce activated charcoal tends to anneal and "heal up" the broken graphite rings that give regular charcoal its activeness. When the carbon atoms are all holding hands in a ring, they're less inclined to form casual relationships with passing oxidizers.

[pyrogeorge]

 

By the way, a friend tried charcoal from apricot seeds. I took his idea as a joke, but the result was impressive, check it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usPVzZZXRLo

wow!looks perfect!!

Apricot wood makes same quality bp?or only the seeds?

[50AE]

pyrogeroge, the guy tried seeds. I'm not sure about the wood though.

[Bilbobaker]

I've gotten excellent results from pacific madrone and it is an incredibly dense hardwood.

[Mothman]

Not sure if its true or not but I read some black powders made from white pine or willow charcoal are to hot to use for rocket fuel and burst charge in shells. Is this true

[Mumbles]

I don't know how true that is. It may be the case in a few instances, but it's certainly not true across the board. The rocket thing revolves around the formula. If I was making rockets with willow, and they started to CATO, you can always adjust the formula until they begin to function properly. With the shells, I've heard that but I don't know if I believe it. With extremely large shells, 16"+, a less intense burst is generally needed. More often than not, this is accomplished by using a larger carrier and typically less powder. 5:1 willow BP on rice hulls may be okay for a 3" shell, but might be too much for a 24" shell. Some others will use commercial airfloat instead of good charcoal for large shell burst.

[Thunderr1]

Pretty amazing stuff!

[dagabu]

I don't know how true that is. Some others will use commercial airfloat instead of good charcoal for large shell burst.

 

When it comes to black powder, I shoot for mediocrity in that I try to not make hot nor tame BP but very middle of the road BP. I can then use my BP for everything from burst to lift, rocket propellant and black match.

 

Weeping Willow (Salix Babylonica) and Black Willow (Salix Nigra) make completely different charcoals, where weeping willow is a Chinese ornamental tree and common in the US but makes OK charcoal, Black Willow makes very hot charcoal. So when using the term Willow, be aware that there are over 400 species of willow with most untested for BP.

 

Eastern White Pine, (Pinus Strobus) is found almost world wide and stands pretty much as the bench mark for good charcoal but lacks in good spark quality that other woods such as Yellow pins and many hard woods create.

I prefer Humphrey's lump charcoal for rockets due to its fantastic orange traditional charcoal tail. Rich and glorious, dense with little loft, it packs well with little dust.

 

-dag

Edited July 23, 2011 by dagabu

[killforfood]

I prefer Humphrey's lump charcoal for rockets due to its fantastic orange traditional charcoal tail. Rich and glorious, dense with little loft, it packs well with little dust.

 

-dag

Dag you describe your charcoal like a fine vintage wine.

Would those rockets launch best with brauts or some pulled pork?

 

 

The charcoal I'm using now is "Hem/Fir" 2x4's. Typically when a stud is stamped Hem/Fir, it will be Hemlock. It could also be Douglas Fir but I can't tell by looking at it. The studs where salvage from an RV shed that I had built about 10 years ago. The wood is bone dry. Do you guys think that moisture content matters or since it all gets burned off anyways, is it irrelevant?

 

 

Edited July 23, 2011 by killforfood

[dagabu]

Dag you describe your charcoal like a fine vintage wine.

Would those rockets launch best with brauts or some pulled pork?

 

Pffft! Sirloin my friend.

 

The charcoal I'm using now is "Hem/Fir" 2x4's. Typically when a stud is stamped Hem/Fir, it will be Hemlock. It could also be Douglas Fir but I can't tell by looking at it. The studs where salvage from an RV shed that I had built about 10 years ago. The wood is bone dry. Do you guys think that moisture content matters or since it all gets burned off anyways, is it irrelevant?

 

Water content is irrelevant, it only takes longer to convert.

 

-dag

[50AE]

Can you guys recommend me any good eastern europe tree for good charcoal in spark production?