Willow charcoal? Is there a difference?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not to highjack the thread, but is it a technical requirement to mill the charcoal, nitre, and, sulfur in the same step or can the ingredients be milled and stored separately for safety sake and then mechanically blended in small batches (eg in a small hand cranked all polymer food processor). Just a thought...quien sabe?
 
You guys are amazing... and a lot of fun!

So if any of you are still reading this. Most of you are RIGHT! The weeping willow I have indigidently will be just fine! It's, good charcoal that is, a matter of being a low density wood with a low resin concentration. Hence, willow or hazel or a number of species you'all have named all would work. The problem with the high BTU woods is, while they make great heat sources, they tend to be a dense wood with a rather high amount of pitch. However, perhaps even more important than the charcoal source is the manner in which it is converted into C7H4O. This, or these methods, were much more the guarded secrets. Willow, balsa and birch will all outperform Swiss. Hazel, linden, fir, oak, beech and ash. will outperform Goex FFF. Those of you with cleanness of burn issues are also correct. However, much of cleanliness has to due with quality of charcoal. My personal problem with using alder is that I would rather do woodworking with it. Much too pretty to shoot! Last, for any arguments I started, I apologize, "You can't shake hands with a clenched fist."
 
Yes Hombre it must....it not just mixing...its pounding it together...and I may have said this but it was explained to me that the carbon atom looks like a ladder and you are pounding KNO3 and sulfur into those voids. and no...I dont speak spanish..lol
 
I have heard of mixing it wet in a blender on a long power cord way out away from everything...Ive got a couple of other methods a guy sent me if you will pm me your email addy Ill look them up and send them to you.
 
What's happening

Dear Brushhippie, I have been thinking about the analogy of your's, "filling the ladder." I am not sure how your mentor ment this. In essence the "pounding" is the creation of a new molecule. It looks like this: 4KNO3+C7H4O+2S (Potassium Nitrate, Charcoal, Sulfur) mechanically (pounded) reacted to form 2K2S+4CO2+3CO+2H2O+2N2 (Black Powder!) Interestingly the Sulfur is there to increase the burn rate. You can make it without Sulfur but it's kind of like drinking lite beer or white wine. What's the point?!? If you change the steps in the creation, as last questioned, you run the risk of changing the molecule. Not dangerous, just not result worthy. However, "A single endeavor is worth a thousand dreams!" CANNONMAN p.S., Sorry I don't have a way to show you how the actual molecule looks. It's cool.
 
I dont think sulpherless powder burns slower at least not in a barrel its just a lot harder to ignite which was realy only a problem for flintlocks i think.

I just learned this myself and it was through some link here i think that musketeer web site linked in the BP essentials.
 
What about poplar? Its light, but burns hot and fast... Not too much resin... And is considered a "weed" tree in most areas.

Seems pretty perfect from reading this... But I know zero about making charcoal so.. Yeah.. LOL

It did spring readily to mind after reading the criteria though...
 
Yes Hombre it must....it not just mixing...its pounding it together...and I may have said this but it was explained to me that the carbon atom looks like a ladder and you are pounding KNO3 and sulfur into those voids

I think this would be a good analogy if you were referring to "the charcoal particles" instead of "the carbon atoms"..... charcoal is carbonized plant tissue, and the airfloat particles are little chunks of the plant's original cellular structure. Irregularly-shaped and very porous.
 
One way to tell is to coal a sample, reduce it to a fine powder then observe the pore size under a reasonably powerful microscope. The whole question of wood species for BP is the effectiveness of incorporation. The larger the pore size of the charcoal the better it's absorption of the niter and sulfur.

According to my uncle's lab notes on the subject "weeping willow" charcoal is "adequate" for black powder used for larger corn sizes. (Such as Fg.) His rule of thumb was the faster the growth rate of the tree the more suitable for powder.
 
Brushie
I was just wondering about putting all the ingredients, alcohol, and lead balls all in a Nalgene bottle on a Harbor Freight mill.
My uncle's "powder mill" was a PVC bladed wind-turbine that a closed piece of PVC sewer pipe could be attached to by the square end of the screw in plug. He routinely "milled" 5 pounds of powder at a time using 20 pounds of 50 caliber lead ball as the grinding/mixing medium. The powder was processed in the mill for two to three days.

Both the neighbors and family are amazed the man managed to die of natural causes.
 
"...the acclaimed willow for charcoal..." Sounds like marketing nonsense to me. Charcoal is charcoal. It's all just carbon made by baking wood.
 
Diamonds

Diamonds are about 99.999% carbon. They come in many different colors and many different grades. This is because of the miniscule fractional differences in material makeup and manner of formation All of which make for huge differences in quality. So what's the difference? In this case price. As for charcoal in BP, performance.

"Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers."
 
willow is fast growing and available everywhere would make no sense to se it as a marketing gimmick.

besides just from having a home fireplace and a lot of campfires i do know that not all
woods burn equal.
 
Someone from a metropolitan area may have never had the opportunity to observe the natural differences in the various types of firewood. As someone who used wood as a heat source for Iowa winters for the first 29 years of life I can tell you there is a huge difference in the heat output and burning rate of hardwoods, and we did not even consider burning softwoods because they would not make a long lasting bed of coals to get you through the majority of the night. I know the actions of the charcoal component in gunpowder have no parallels to the heating rate of the parent wood but please don't tell me that there is no difference.........l
 
Someone from a metropolitan area may have never had the opportunity to observe the natural differences in the various types of firewood. As someone who used wood as a heat source for Iowa winters for the first 29 years of life I can tell you there is a huge difference in the heat output and burning rate of hardwoods, and we did not even consider burning softwoods because they would not make a long lasting bed of coals to get you through the majority of the night. I know the actions of the charcoal component in gunpowder have no parallels to the heating rate of the parent wood but please don't tell me that there is no difference.........l
Coking wood essentially drives out the water from from wood, both chemically bonded and free. The mineral content and structure doesn't change. Expanding on your example, cottonwood gives off a great deal of heat but you wouldn't want to use it for home heating as that heat is given off in a relatively short period of time. Short enough that the temps can be high enough to burn out your stove pipe while oak settles down to a nice, long burning, bed of coals that will warm your house for several hours.

Oddly enough, coking cottonwood and the yield of charcoal is very small but you gain a wealth of fuel grade hydro-carbons. With oak the hydrocarbon yield is considerably smaller but a greater yield of charcoal.

I was blessed with having a teacher in my youth intensely curious about the fuel values and possibilities of plant life. He often dragged me into participating in his experiments in chemical analysis of pyrolysis hoping to inspire a similar curiosity. He didn't succeed but he did manage to teach me a bit about charcoal.
 
Thank you for that information. I have been toying with the idea of making a charcoal oven from a steel pipe I happened upon some years ago but I have been too busy with real work to proceed.
 
I'd use whatever wood the Swiss claim to use.

Regardless of wood choice, one must char it at the correct, and rather low, temperature. 900F runs in my mind but that could easily be an error. For making "moist burning" blackpowder one needs to retain some creosote (a.k.a, the hydrocarbons mentioned earlier) in the charcoal.
Don't char it too hot.
For the right temperature you need to talk to someone who actually makes charcoal for a living. I should have taken notes on my conversation with someone in South America who made charcoal, we talked only because I was the Tecchie at a heat resistant alloy supplier.
Oh yeah - Why O Why would you make powder yourself? I did when I was 15, but then, I was 15. Do you have a fatal disease with a predictably terrible death ahead of you?
 
Here's a short video of my retort in action. I've tried grapevine and black willow. The willow definitely makes faster powder. Luckily all the creeks and streams and stock tanks around here have black willow growing around them.

I made my retort out of an old electric water heater tank and a small propane tank like for a gas grill. I fill the propane tank with willow and set it inside the water heater tank and build a fire around it with whatever scrap wood that needs to be burned. You can see the wood gasses burning off the willow.

When the tank quits venting I pull it out and let it cool down. It has to cool down before you open it or the charcoal will start burning and turn to ash when oxygen hits it.
th_VIDEO0006_zps35727511.gif
 
The plans I found for a charcoal kiln from a steel cylinder includes a pipe to recover the gases and burn them under the kiln to heat the wood. When the burner pipe no longer gets enough gas from the wood to produce fire it is done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top