Coal Density

This year I knew I've got some clean stuff relative to bone content. It shows in the ash pan. Very powdery ash and seemed heavier when packed. I found this thread last week. I borrowed a class A graduated cylinder and ran three tests. I filled the cylinder with 50 mL of 77F water and added wighed pea coal until the top of the water was ~1/4+ above the coal and recorded how many mL the water rose. This coal must not contain much slate at all. It seem to be reflected in the numbers, both density and the ash pan.

Edit: When I returned the graduated cylinder I noticed it was calibrated at 68F. However I ran the calculations based on water at 77F. To fix this I used the same temperature water the test was performed at (77F) and weighed 50 mLs at 49 g. I added 77F water to 50g which showed about 51 mL in the cylinder. I adjusted to initial results up to correct volume of 1 mL of water having a mass of gram. changed things by ~+2%.

Nice! Where did you get your coal this year?Now all you need are some covered crucibles and you can start doing ash tests.

Paulie

VigIIPeaBurner wrote:This year I knew I've got some clean stuff relative to bone content. It shows in the ash pan. Very powdery ash and heavier per unit volume. I found this thread last week. I borrowed a class A graduated cylinder and ran three tests. I filled the cylinder with 50 mL of 77F water and added wighed pea coal until the top of the water was ~1/4+ above the coal and recorded how many mL the water rose. This coal must not contain much slate at all. It seem to be reflected in the numbers, both density and the ash pan.

Very nice numbers.

lobsterman wrote:

Lightning wrote:So I forgot, was it the denser the coal, the better, or the other way?

Denser is worse because it contains slate that is denser than anthracite.

I believe too much either way is bad. Overly dense means slate or shale and to much under could mean less fixed carbon and btus