55 replies to this topic

[Niall]

In fact it was while sat round a fire for too many beers when I realised I should throw a can on! All because Ken suggested it!

Now I'm finding charcoal dust in places I didn't know existed. But it's fun, fascinating and educating! The new kiln is somewhat less appealing for sitting round though. Win some, lose some.

[Niall]

Ps. Just in case you do want to risk a try of my charcoal, make sure you message me when you buy it!!!!!


Update: it has just occurred to me that this thread is tantamount to advertising. I didn't intend it to be, I just wanted to explain myself.

I will not be offended if the admins wish to delete it. May I ask permission for it to remain as it is helpful to me, and hopefully beneficial to all of you.

Edited by Niall, 01 February 2015 - 07:03 PM.

[Arthur Brown]

I remember a video of someone cooking charcoal in one bean tin with a slightly larger bean can over the top.

[Niall]

I think that would be the tlud method from what you describe. It does give good results. But the wood must be very dry and well stacked with equal sized pieces. Otherwise the Fire finds its way to the bottom quickly and a lot of ash and uneven burning is apparent. Certainly a good fun project. You can even cook on it.

[Deano 1]

I remember a video of someone cooking charcoal in one bean tin with a slightly larger bean can over the top.

That will be me.

[Deano 1]

I stand corrected on my comment about the price and I apologize if it appeared rude. I have never bought charcoal, I have always made my own, infact I made charcoal powder way before I bought any other chems when I first started out in pyro. I still have that video on YouTube that Roger mentioned. I'll stick a link up if you like. 

[Deano 1]

Is this the one Roger.

https://www.youtube....h?v=_uJb3ZrDLq0

[Arthur Brown]

That's the one! I like the method.

[Deano 1]

It's a good way to experiment with different materials, which I have done, and I still go back to beech wood (old furniture beech).

[Arthur Brown]

The charcoal you show, shows a great attribute of being crumblable by hand, which is usually a good start for fast powder.

Edited by Arthur Brown, 04 February 2015 - 07:47 PM.

[Niall]

No offence taken, Deano! If it wasn't for skeptics we'd still be doing the rain dance to get a morning shower!

It was when I realised the difference between charcoal and charcoal that I thought people were missing out. Thanks to Ken, I tried it, and it blew me away!

Anybody can sell whatever they want, call it what they want and people believe it. It's not until you've had the real thing that you know you've been conned!

The work that goes into a kilo of willow for me is worth £17!

I chainsaw it, kindle it, stack it, burn it, cool it, check it, grind it, seive it, pack it, send it. 7kg leaves me just over 1kg of useable willow!

I encourage people to use the HP because it really is better than any 'willow' off ebay. The pine is something else too as another guy has said on this forum.

I just want people to have access to stuff that is exactly what it says it is, as good as they could make for themselves if they had the means.

It costs for my effort, but you know where the money goes!!! If I try to mass produce it on any bigger scale, other than more kilns, the quality will drop. So, my prices are what they are for reasons I've sat long and hard to justify!

I bloody love the stuff. It makes a 2" mortar sound like a cannon, and leaves a grin that doesn't wear off for a few hours.....

Edited by Niall, 07 February 2015 - 09:08 PM.

[Niall]

Sorry to 'power post' but it was people exactly like Deano, taking the time to make these videos and put them up, that led me to make the device I have now. It has chambers, vents, afterburners, cold air bypasses, intakes, exhausts, vortex generators, stators and peepholes! It is just a few rotor blades short of an RB199!!

But that's just the geek in me, all that matters is that if I can twist the charcoal at a certain pressure and it snaps, it goes down to powder and through your door!

Following our research, do not buy fine charcoal for BP. It slows your powder down. Fast BP is one mixture that depends on your fuel NOT being finely divided at the beginning of the process.

I'm sure most of you know that, but if you need, I can elaborate....

[cooperman435]

Please do elaborate, I've never put much thought into if there are differing results gotten from differing raw material grades, Id always assumed as it would be powdered down further in the milling process that it was pretty immaterial?

 

I suppose if it was TRUE air float to begin with then yes it wont be further milled much but can only imagine a difference because the grains have a reduced porosity because of that earlier milling in the mill jar alone resulting in slightly lower incorporation of the nitrate and sulfur during the final milling?

 

To be fair the finest stuff I ever use is still course (4# to fines maybe just from the natural process of it breaking down as its charcoaled) as I never saw a point milling it to begin with when the mill will do it all for you anyway :-)

Edited by cooperman435, 08 February 2015 - 01:54 AM.

[Niall]

Well, exactly, the mill does it all! And exactly as you say!

If I may, I will strip this back to absolute basics, not for you Cooperman, but for those who don't have your knowledge and might be reading this.

The intimacy of the mixture absolutely depends on the structure of the charcoal. The structure of the charcoal can be likened to a sponge, all the cells that the tree consists of are now dry and empty leaving the structural walls in place, carbon and mineral mixtures. Carbon generally from the air and minerals from the ground.

Biology enthusiasts can disagree with some of this detail, but it is not important to the explanation.

So, the porous nature and the structural integrity of charcoal is key. This is entirely why we cannot just use carbon. It has no structure useful to us. And those who have tried will agree by their results.

BP in law is described as an intimate mixture of [x, y and z]. In chemistry there are two principle mixture types- mechanical and intimate. To give an idea of the difference, you would need a microscopic view of BP. Using x, y and z in a mechanical mixture, you would simply stir the ingredients, such as screening mixtures of rocket powder. In law, this is not BP. Under the microscope the finely divided materials would be visible as three separate items. This then is a mechanical mixture of items sat next to each other. For this to be effective as a type of BP, you would need fine division from the outset of your process, in order to get an exposed surface area that is maximised.

In an intimate mixture, with the same components, at least one component must have the ability to 'house' the others. Under the Microscope, you would not necessarily be able to see the individual components. What has happened is that the charcoal has had the sulphur and nitrate hammered into it. Hence why milling is the peculiar method for BP - the vital difference.

This has the effect of fine division as we desire in metallic composition principles, vastly increased surface area, allowing quicker state change at the input of trigger energies (more change per moment - faster propagation of trigger energies). The more surface area of the components that are exposed to the others means there is less work (or more reaction readiness) to do during the triggered exchange. Thus, you get your heat and gases quicker. The difference between a fizz and a bang!

To my point! If you mill the charcoal to such fine divisions that the structure becomes reduced, you are diminishing the difference - from normal carbon powder - that you require. More than that, the milling may have forced microscopic carbon into to the very holes that you need. Reducing the available surface area.

As the pyros here all know, sulphur is there to reduce the trigger energy needed for the carbon to oxidise (melting point) and the nitrate is there to give up its oxygen (reduce).

I now mill the nitrate and sulphur for 30 mins or so, to finely divide and mechanically mix the two. Then I add the charcoal in sawdust sized pieces, chunks and fines. This means that as the charcoal breaks down, you are immediately hammering the other two into the pores.

This, in theory, should lead to the maximum contact surface area permissible by way of an intimate mix.

I find the difference is telling. Willow is a good wood because of its structure and strength. It's the stuff Goldilocks would use......

There's more about it over at Pyro-Gear, everyone is welcome to look, Richard has really put some very serious effort in.

I know there are some issues between the groups, but I think we should be spending more time on our similarities. After all the information is intended to try to improve the hobby for everyone, that is 'literally' meaning everyone. Not everyone 'except' A, B and C. That makes entirely no sense! Why would something be there for all the people you don't know, more than those you do know? I hope you don't mind me noting this.

Just a thought. There is one original reason we joined these pages.......

Edited by Niall, 08 February 2015 - 06:45 AM.

[Crazy Cat]

Standard Test Method for Chemical Analysis of Wood Charcoal. & Science, and Technology of Charcoal Production.

Attached Files

•  Chemical Analysis of Wood Charcoal.pdf   63.43KB   388 downloads
•  Science, and Technology of Charcoal Production.pdf   428.39KB   325 downloads