Maybe the bad stuff is the good stuff?? Semi Anthracite.

2001Sierra wrote:Are yellow volatile flames producing more BTU's than blue flames? My Keystoker when it gets going I see yellow flames unlike the big blue flames in my hand fired.

Captain Michael wrote:This is just a thought, but it kinda makes sense in my mind. maybe one of you coal guys from NE Pa. can chime in and staighten me out on my way of thinking. Reading these posts on the forum would lead a man to believe that the best anthracite is down near the the south west edge of the deposit. I don't know the mine names but the there is a cluster of breakers on the google map in that area, including Superior and UAE. And it is no secret that the coal from those breakers are some of the best for our application. If you look at the Pa. coal maps (Google Pa.coal deposits) you will see that the south west extremity of the coal field is semi anthracite. Overlay your breaker map on the Pa coal field map and Superior and UAE amoung others are right over the semi anthracite deposit. I have stated in earliar post that I work for CNX coal. I also posted that I had last years load from superior tested and that lab said it tested as more of a semi anthracite than a high grade anthrasite. They said that it was about 90% carbon and that is on the low end grade of anthrcite. One of the guys in my office is a mineral process engineer. He spent 15 years in a coal prep plant washing coal and he knows the game, ash, btu, volatile, ect. ect. He and I have talked at lenth about burning anthracite since I starterd 3-4 years ago. I can't tell you how many times on this forum guys have talked about good coal and crappy coal. Think about this. Coal needs some volatiles to keep it burning. If our anthracite was 100% carbon you couldn't keep it lit. How many times on this forum have people commented on the blue flame immitted from thier coal fire. That blue flame is the coal burning off the volatiles. Gas is a volatile in coal. Coal contains methane, propane and butane. It is my contension that what we on these forums believe to be the good stuff is actually the low end of the anthracite spectrum. It works well in our stoves and stokers because it has enough volatiles to make it work. I surmise the stuff we complain about may be a higher grade of coal. It just does not work well for us with out the volatiles. Any opinions??

AA130FIREMAN wrote:

Richard S. wrote:What you're really discussing here is the difference between white ash and red ash.

The red ash has a higher ash content, sometimes up around 16% I think for superior. Because of the higher volatile matter it still produces a lot of heat. One of the problems is if you try and burn it too hot, you'll get clinkers.

The white ash has lower ash content, typically around 10 or 11%. As the ash content goes up with white ash the BTU's drop. I've seen some numbers where it has dropped into the 5 and 6% range. This coal is rock hard and not exactly easy to burn. It is so dense it would appear that half a ton was missing over a 5 ton load. While this is harder to burn it produces a lot of heat for a very long time once you get it roilling, the added benefit is picking up ash tubs that feel like they are filled with feathers. You can get coal like that burn up to nothing but powder especially in a hand fired stove.

I picked up a lot of customers over the years that were using red ash and most preferred the white ash. Of course they weren't getting crap white ash which is a whole other ball game.

I was under the assumption the white ash gives less btu's than the red ash. And the red ash is harder, and harder to keep lit over the white ash. Tamaqua north east to scranton is harder/red ash and west is softer white ash. OR HAVE I BEEN MISLEAD ???

Richard S. wrote:What you're really discussing here is the difference between white ash and red ash.

The red ash has a higher ash content, sometimes up around 16% I think for superior. Because of the higher volatile matter it still produces a lot of heat. One of the problems is if you try and burn it too hot, you'll get clinkers.

The white ash has lower ash content, typically around 10 or 11%. As the ash content goes up with white ash the BTU's drop. I've seen some numbers where it has dropped into the 5 and 6% range. This coal is rock hard and not exactly easy to burn. It is so dense it would appear that half a ton was missing over a 5 ton load. While this is harder to burn it produces a lot of heat for a very long time once you get it roilling, the added benefit is picking up ash tubs that feel like they are filled with feathers. You can get coal like that burn up to nothing but powder especially in a hand fired stove.

I picked up a lot of customers over the years that were using red ash and most preferred the white ash. Of course they weren't getting crap white ash which is a whole other ball game.

Captain Michael wrote:Some of that was close and some of that was half baked. CO gas? Methane, propane, butane. Or did you invent a new gas?

Captain Michael wrote:This is just a thought, but it kinda makes sense in my mind. maybe one of you coal guys from NE Pa. can chime in and staighten me out on my way of thinking. Reading these posts on the forum would lead a man to believe that the best anthracite is down near the the south west edge of the deposit. I don't know the mine names but the there is a cluster of breakers on the google map in that area, including Superior and UAE. And it is no secret that the coal from those breakers are some of the best for our application. If you look at the Pa. coal maps (Google Pa.coal deposits) you will see that the south west extremity of the coal field is semi anthracite. Overlay your breaker map on the Pa coal field map and Superior and UAE amoung others are right over the semi anthracite deposit. I have stated in earliar post that I work for CNX coal. I also posted that I had last years load from superior tested and that lab said it tested as more of a semi anthracite than a high grade anthrasite. They said that it was about 90% carbon and that is on the low end grade of anthrcite. One of the guys in my office is a mineral process engineer. He spent 15 years in a coal prep plant washing coal and he knows the game, ash, btu, volatile, ect. ect. He and I have talked at lenth about burning anthracite since I starterd 3-4 years ago. I can't tell you how many times on this forum guys have talked about good coal and crappy coal. Think about this. Coal needs some volatiles to keep it burning. If our anthracite was 100% carbon you couldn't keep it lit. How many times on this forum have people commented on the blue flame immitted from thier coal fire. That blue flame is the coal burning off the volatiles. Gas is a volatile in coal. Coal contains methane, propane and butane. It is my contension that what we on these forums believe to be the good stuff is actually the low end of the anthracite spectrum. It works well in our stoves and stokers because it has enough volatiles to make it work. I surmise the stuff we complain about may be a higher grade of coal. It just does not work well for us with out the volatiles. Any opinions??

Captain Michael wrote:Hey guys I been away for awile. its been way to nice outside to be online in the summer. Back to this conversation. I ask the question because I was curious about all this stuff. I do want to say to coal berner that you are wrong about superiors ash never being above 14%. I had it tested in a lab that does nothing but test coal 24 / 7 / 365. It tested 15% That lab belongs to the largest underground coal mining company in the USA. I have access to any number of mining engineers, mineral process engineers and a whole traunche of others educated in places like the Colorado school of mining or WVU. If you have a question, send it to me and I will ask one of these guys. I may not really understand the answer but I will bring it back for you. I did not mean to offend anyone, I just love to hear all sides of issues and stir people into spirited thought.