Talk:Charcoal

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Sumi-e

As for 'sumi-e', the 'sumi' here means ink, not charcoal. They are homophones in Japanese, and the ink is made from (I believe) pine soot, but sumi-e is ink painting, not charcoal painting.

Image

I guess the top image is from 1890, not 1990. Perhaps Meteor2017 can confirm this? -- TrygveFlathen 08:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second picture in the Purification and Filtration section does not appear to match its caption or this article. 2603:6011:341:2B94:39E2:9E5E:E92A:22F3 (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

Should discuss use of charcoal in art, and mention parsemage. --Daniel C. Boyer

Does it really make sense to say that gunpowder is "one of the most important uses"? Especially when by gunpowder we mean black powder. --conana


Should also make reference to the wide use of sedimentary charcoal in palaeoenvironmental studies, in the study of the history of fire ecology and regimes.

  • If anyone feels a certain aspect is regrattably totally absent dfrom an article, (s)he wold do better to have a go at adding something to the article (which is probably watched by many contributors, and thus may get going) rather then just complain on Talk (which is often given a miss, e.g. by me most of the time).

External link?

The external link at http://www.swuklink.com/BAAAGFDO.php is interesting but very poorly formatted and difficult to read. Anyone else agree? -- Dave C. 00:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that link formatted fine for me. --Syrthiss 14:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looked okay to me until I tried to scroll. What a mess. I didn't bother reading it; worth keeping? ike9898 20:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Charcoal in stomach vaste reservoirs

I'm not entirely sure as to how to write this, but I have heard charcoal is used in those bags where fecal matter enters on the stomach surface. To adsorb the stench of flatulence and feces?

why burn charcoal over wood?

maybe add to the top of the page the reasons for using charcoal instead of just burning wood in a fire for cooking/heating? I assume the removal of the water and other components allows charcoal to burn to a higher temperature, but am not sure. 66.92.173.28 19:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That and the fact that the product of its combustion is mainly carbon dioxide, hence, very little smoke. Regular wood gives off a good ammount of steam and unburnt carbon particles (soot) in the smoke.

Is the use of charcoal contributing to global warming? Since it gives off carbon dioxide, will it soon be removed from the market?

Since charcoal comes from wood, which is a renewable resource, burning it is generally regarded as carbon neutral. This is because the wood took on carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it grew. This makes it differnet from fossil fuels. Peterkingiron 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page to say exactly this. The article describes lots of things that charcoal has been used for over the years, but nowhere does it say why people started using it in the first place instead of just continuing to burn wood. Etymology and Method of production are important, but not as important as "Why" 69.245.81.97 (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the answer is that the calorific value is higher (heat per weight). This means that a higher temperature can be acheived; also if the fuel is not burnt where it is grown, the trnasport cost is lower. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation is unclear

"Under average conditions, 100 parts of wood yield about 60 parts by volume, or 25 parts by weight, of charcoal; small scale production on the spot often yields only about 50%, large scale was efficient to about 90% even by the 17th century."

What does the 50% and 90% refer to here?

It probably means that 90% by weight of the carbon in the wood remained as charcoal, but unless that's cited, I really dont' know whether that should be included in the article --204.169.28.98 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

charcoal and steamcoal

Can anybody tell me the basic difference between charcoal dust and coal dust produced during mining (i.e. steam coal dust) whether charcoal dust can be used in place of steam coal dust in foundry sand addition?

Nitin Poddar

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coal_dust"

I believe that it can. The impurities in dust from mineral coal play no part in the process. Indeed charcoal can be (and often once was) used for many pirposes for which mineral coal is now used. Charocla is merely a purer source of carbon. Peterkingiron 22:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you use charcoal as khol?

I think you probably can, unless it's bad for your eyes.

DarkestMoonlight (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some research suggesting that carbon black might not be the best pigment to put on your skin. Ask your doctor. Wikipedia is not a place to go for medical advice. HLHJ (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please can you use vine charcoal that you use in art as eyeliner ?

See above.

DarkestMoonlight (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charcoal as Art

I suggest that a new little section be added to strictly talk about charcoal in art. There is quite a bit to talk about, and maybe include a picture.68.114.63.51 14:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where can i find it

can body tell me please where you can find charcoal

i really need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.170.7 (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested new links

This page should include a link to "Wood Gas" and to "Pyrolysis". The pyrolysis of wood produces a solid; the charcoal, and also gasses; the "wood gasses". These are all related concepts. I haven't figured out how to add links or I would do it myself. Alexander SelkirkAlexselkirk1704 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How charcoal is made

There should be more details given on how charcoal is made. If not a whole section, at least a link should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.230.55 (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would agree. I came to the page curious about how its actually produced, but its not explained. If someone knows, it would be a nice addition to the page. 207.115.84.2 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charcoal is generally made by means of a clamp. This is essentially a pile of wooden logs (ie seasoned oak) leaning against a chimney (logs are placed in a circle). The chimney consists of 4 wooden stakes held up by some rope. The logs are completely covered with soil & straw allowing no air to enter. It has to be lit by introducing some fuel (ie charcoal, ...) in the chimney; the logs burn very slowly (cold fire) and transform into charcoal in a period of 5 days burning. If the soil covering gets torn (cracked) due to the fire, additional soil is placed on the cracks. Once the burn is complete, the chimney is plugged to prevent air to enter. See Geoarch and Edwardian Farm charcoal making. 91.182.51.243 (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck is cold fire? After a quick search, I couldn't find any other reference to this phrase, so I've removed it. Ambiguator (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a description of the traditional method. I believe it is now done in a metal oven. WP does not (I think) encourage the use of youtube sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, nonetheless the documentary itself (BBC) can probably be trusted as a source of accurate information. I made a small schematic you can add:
A clamp for charcoal production

Also, perhaps useful is a small text I made at http://www.appropedia.org/Charcoal_making 81.242.235.99 (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KVDP's illustration claims the use of "seasoned oak" logs as a feedstock. Charcoal is made from green wood instead (unseasoned), mostly to avoid the cost of seasoning it first. Also "logs" are often saleable and charcoal is a way of using up untransportable branchwood. I've also never seen a clamp with a chimney structure like this protruding outside the shell of the clamp. If it did, it would tend to burn out quite quickly and produce a large air leak.
Charcoal is made by three methods: retorts, metal ring clamps and earth clamps. Commercially, nearly everything is now done in a reusable retort (typically brick with steel doors), as the combustion and carburization process chambers may be separarated, giving an easier control over the process. Clamps are still used for "traditional" and small-scale production, as they have a low capital and transport cost. It's usually to use reusable steel ring clamps, rather than building a fragile and leaky earth clamp. They take far less looking after when burning, as they don't suddenly crack and leak. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, there is Category:Charcoal ovens; it seems from its contents that "charcoal oven" might be a US-dialect term for a charcoal kiln, as well as a term for a charcoal-fuelled oven for baking bread and the like. User:Andy Dingley lists "retorts, metal ring clamps and earth clamps"; his description of a retort sounds similar to a charcoal kiln. Oil drums are used to make charcoal, too, I suppose they'd count as a mini metal-ring clamp. Is there a generic term of "structures for making charcoal in"? HLHJ (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related move discussion

Peterkingiron, Andy Dingley, there is an article at Charcoal pile about charcoal clamps. Charcoal kiln also redirects there. I have requested a page move at Talk:Charcoal pile, as I think the name "charcoal pile" is just a translation error; comments welcome there. Charcoal clamp currently redirects to a section of this Charcoal page. HLHJ (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

history: colliers

"Under average conditions, 100 parts of wood yield about 60 parts by volume, or 25 parts by weight, of charcoal; small scale production on the spot often yields only about 50%, large scale was efficient to about 90% even by the 17th century. The operation is so delicate that it was generally left to colliers (professional charcoal burners), who often worked in isolated groups in the woods and had a rather bad social reputation."

This clearly needs a citation, and it's certainly not in the Henry Ford reference.--AaronRosenberg (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medicinal Uses

Charcoal can be given by a doctor to a patient to absorb poisons in the patient's stomach. For example, if a patient attempts suicide by overdosing on some kinds of medicine, after inducing vomiting, getting the patient to swallow charcoal can help by the charcoal absorbing poisons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaydell (talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can, although many doctors would prefer to use the activated form...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_carbon. 203.184.2.183 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ford is not the inventor of Charcoal

According to the US patent office Ellsworth B.A. Zwoyer patented the Charcoal Briquette in 1897. (Design Patent Number D27483) He started the Zwoyer Fuel Company following WWI. This patent predates the Ford story of Charcoal invention in 1920 by 23 years.

Taking out a patent for an invention in ignorance that some one had patented the same thing before is far from unheard of. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been altered to refer to Zwoyer as the IP owner and initial producer while still citing Our Ford's great efforts to popularize it and improve its efficiency. *Sign of the T* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.132.30 (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colliers

The "wood colliers" term is interesting. I wonder if there is any connection with the Scots Gaelic word "coille", meaning wood or small forest. Gordonjcp (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable. A person mining mineral coal is a collier; so is a coal ship. A wood collier is a person who made coal (i.e. charcoal) from wood. Conceivably the two might have the same Indo-European root. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely that charcoal was available LONG before coal was extracted from the earth, although sea coal seems to have been extracted in the neolithic. Collier as applied to coal extraction/transportation, is therefore FAR more likely to come from a use for charcoal. Given the it's fairly likely likely the earliest charcoal workers within the British Isles were Shelta or similar speakers of a Gaelic type language, it's perhaps worthwhile looking into The Cant to see if it provides a clearer link?
Leland introduced the term Shelta in The Gypsies and I've been meaning to read it for a while. If there's anything in it about about charcoal I'll reference it on this Talk page, to see if people recon it should/shouldn't be refered to for verification of the origins of the wood colier term.
Also I recon it would be a good thing to list typical calorific values on this page. Indeed that's why I first loooked this page up!
steve10345 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Coal" has apparently been used to refer to charcoal, too; that is, "char" was used as a qualifier. So a charcoal-maker would still have been a collier, in some English dialects (see that last link). HLHJ (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early reasons for use?

I'd appreciate a sentence or three on the question "what was the point of charcoal, originally?". I.e., there are many uses and advantages listed that apply to modern times (medicinal, art supplies, production of chemicals, filtration, etc etc), but in terms of burning it for fuel, what was (and is) the advantage to burning off a large percentage of the energy in the wood, especially in places where wood is scarce and the processing isn't easy, etc.? Is it simply that it burns with less smoke? Thanks! Chconnor (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May have answered my own question? -- apparently the advantage is the lightness of charcoal for transporting from centers of fuel production to faraway destinations? Early uses are listed (e.g. metallurgy) but in terms of burning for simple fuel, the ease of transportation seems worth mentioning (if in fact it's correct). Otherwise it doesn't make much sense to waste the energy in producing charcoal from wood. Also, the first paragraph under "History" seems ambigious about the percentages given: "efficient" in what sense? The reduction of volume or weight or energy in the wood? Sorry to just critique, but I don't know enough to make the edits myself. Chconnor (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed charcoal cooking NPOV paragraph

I removed a paragraph on the supposed health effects of using "charcoal briquettes" in third world countries because first of all it is a health issue, not charcoal subject matter. Secondly, the "briquettes" used for cooking are NOT charcoal, they are coal or coke with fillers in them. This is the article on CHARCOAL not coke. There is already enough confusion among the population about what charcoal is, let's not increase by taling about coal products in an article on charcoal. Coal and charcoal are different things. Thirdly the paragraph was NPOV and patronising towards poor countries. John Chamberlain (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CHARCOAL

COULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME IF USING CHARCOAL IN A GRILL TO COOK, IS IT HARMFUL FUMES GOING INTO OUR MEAT?????? THEY SAY THE BLACK PART OF A CHARCOAL GIVES OFF TOXIC FUMES INTO OUR MEAT. THANK YOU, KATE — Preceding unsigned comment added by KATEDONTKNOW (talk • contribs) 00:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't "shout". Real charcoal is certainly not harmful, modern charcoal briquettes, I am not so sure about

IceDragon64 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dates?

Can we have some dates in the History part. When was Charcoal first used, when was it used in various places, that kind of thing.

IceDragon64 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Degradation section is vague

Degradation section is unclear. What temerature is rised? And what is the name of the bacteria that degrades charcoal (wiki link says that the name diplococcus only describe bacteria's shape)? 78.88.118.112 (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charcoal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metallurgical fuel and temperature of combustion

The present text states, without source, that charcoal burns at up to 2,700 degrees C, which is much higher than the melting temperature of iron (1,500). I don't know what is the absolute maximum burning temperature of charcoal, but in historical times a temperature as high as 2,700 was never achieved. A traditional charcoal smelting furnace, with bellows, could only achieve about 1,300, which was high enough to soften iron or iron ore, but not to melt it. For that reason in Europe iron and steel could not be melted and cast, but only beaten and welded on an anvil, before about 1300 A.D. In China, cast iron was produced earlier due to the use of larger blast furnaces with continuously blown air, but even these probably could not quite reach 1500, the melting point of pure iron. Cast iron contains a significant proportion of carbon, absorbed from the charcoal, which reduces its melting point. Maybe in modern furnaces, using pure oxygen, and with excellent thermal insulation, temperatures as high as 2700 can be reached, but if so I would like to see a source for this.109.150.75.22 (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been challenged since late 2014 and existed for many more years before then. How about removing most of the offending text and simply say that the temperature can approach that needed to work iron, ideally with a good reference?Cutelyaware (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't temperature, so much as heat. Charcoal, with a mouth-blown blowpipe, can reach a high temperature and had been doing so since antiquity. For iron though, the hand-blown bellows or even a double-acting box tatara (much more efficient) can't be made big enough. Useful amounts of charge start to need water-powered blowing houses. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All good stuff. How about updating the article with it? Cutelyaware (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"History" section unsourced for 6 years

In reading this article, I noticed that the "History" section of the page cites only one source in the last 2 sentences. The rest is entirely unsourced, and according to the template, has been for 6 years. I've removed the offending information per WP:USI, which states that "unsourced information can be boldly removed". I don't think there's anything bold about removing information that hasn't been verified in over half a decade, but if anyone disagrees with my edit, please post here. FadyP (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted referenced content as well and called this "unsourced"?
I'm restoring the lot. Yes, it needs sourcing. The way to do that is to add sources, not to blank large sections. You don't see to have made any attempt at that, and this is hardly a hard topic to source. Nor is it to kick off time-wasting actions like this, just to waste the time of editors who might otherwise be able to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I overlooked those very minor sourced sections, which is my bad. However, I'm removing all the unsourced content again, again, per WP policy (as mentioned). Since this is a subject you clearly care about, feel free to go through the removed text, source it, and restore it once you have done so. Until such time as the text is sourced, it should not be displayed to the public. As you say, it shouldn't be hard! :)
In the meantime, you may want to familiarise yourself with WP's fundamental principles such as WP:GOODFAITH and guidelines such as WP:NEEDSMOARDRAMA, as you clearly are unable to apply either of these to your editing. There is no need to be so aggressive right off the bat, nor is there a need to assume that this was anything other than someone trying to improve the quality of an article. Instead of reverting the changes and being rude, you could have just answered on the talk page (as I had requested), and I would have undone the edit myself until such time as consensus was reached. Your way was just abrasive. FadyP (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've blanked 4k of important content in a vital article, lied in the reasoning as to why, and now threaten to edit-war anyone who disagrees. But of course it's all someone else's fault. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to "Ash (analytical chemistry)" in the first "ash" word of the article, correct?

Currently (as of me writing this), the first "ash" word of the article, links to Ash (analytical chemistry) but I'm not sure if this is correct and whether it should be Ash instead. Mikkeli22 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charcoal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Function of Charcoal - Why Make It?

Seems at the top of the article we want to articulate the function/benefit/purpose of charcoal. It is very likely to be enabling higher temperatures (e.g. for heat engine efficiency), and also compactness of combustion chamber, but we need the real charcoal experts to provide this info. We need the people to come to expect the fundamental info first, and all the mountains of peripheral info second. This is only common sense. Rtdrury (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About its uses

The section "Cosmetic Use of Bamboo Charcoal" could be moved into a subsection of "Purification and Filtration" or rename the two as "activated carbon" or something similar. This is burning "bamboo" to obtain "bamboo" charcoal to essentially obtain "bamboo" activated carbon/charcoal. The mentioned "highly effective absorbing properties at a microscopic-state/fine-grained level" is essentially from the properties of activated carbon i.e. "high degree of microporosity" and "high surface area" as mentioned in Activated carbon. This is per the definition "Charcoal is the lightweight black carbon and ash residue hydrocarbon produced by removing water and other volatile constituents from animal and vegetation substances." where bamboo is the vegetative substance. --- Joedf (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical composition and structure

How come there is no information about charcoal's chemical composition and structure? Is that available in some other wikiarticle? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is (almost) pure carbon. But then I am wondering where it goes in allotrope form system? I would guess it is closest to graphite, but the two are not apparently quite the same either. Its name in many languages translates as "wood carbon", though it might not have any relevance to this question. 86.115.91.152 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Charcoal pile which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 23 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lavender4095 (article contribs).

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Charcoal"